Top Rated

The Concept of Race, in the Gospel

I expect to hear much more about the priesthood ban the LDS church imposed on black Africans as the US presidential election gets closer. And I’d expect LDS blogs to begin either defending the ban, attempting to explain it away, or talking about how the church needs to formally apologize for being racist and move on — [This recent one from Wheat & Tares comes to mind]

The origins of associating Cain’s mark with having black skin – and then tying that together with Canaan’s curse of slavery – and then rolling it all in with the priesthood restriction pertaining to Pharaoh [through Ham] in the book of Abraham — all originate with Victorian-era, Western European/American attempts to justify the enslavement of Africans.

No group ever persecutes, enslaves, tortures, or murders another group without first justifying their actions by placing the subjugated group outside the moral community of all human-beings [by one means or another].

Cain’s mark:

The entire point of the YHVH-author’s writings in Genesis was to explain how the world at the present [the time at which he was writing] came to be that way. Why does man labor to till the earth, why does woman labor to birth children, why do some people organize as separate family-units and wear clothing – while others organize as sexually-open tribes and wear little clothing, why do some people raise crops and flocks – while others roam the earth and hunt nomadically, why do humans speak different languages? – etc.

The story of Cain’s mark is that author’s attempt to explain the existence of the nomadic Sleb tribes of Arabia, which were contemporaries with the people who wrote the biblical text. These people were qayin [the word translated as “Cain”], which means “workers in metal”.

Their own cultural traditions explain that they were nomadic because, “the ground does not yield fruit to them.” Also, as a tribal group, they are known to take seven-fold revenge on a person who kills one of their own fellow-tribesmen. In other words, they start to sound a lot like:

and Cain went into the field
and Cain talked with Abel
his brother
and it came to pass
that while they were in the field
Cain rose up against Abel
his brother
and slew him
and Cain gloried in that which he had done
saying

I am free
surely the flocks of my brother
falleth into my hands

and YHVH said unto Cain

where is Abel
thy brother?

And he said

I know not
am I my brother’s keeper?

and YHVH said

what hast thou done?
the voice of thy brother’s blood
cries unto me from the ground
and now thou shalt be cursed from the earth
which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood
from thy handwhen thou tillest the groundit shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strengtha fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth

and Cain said unto YHVH

satan tempted me because of my brother’s flocks
and I was wroth also
for his offering thou didst accept
and not mine

my punishment is greater than I can bear
behold
thou hast driven me out this day
from the face of YHVH
and from thy face shall I be hid
and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth
and it shall come to pass
that he that findeth me will slay me
because of mine iniquities
for these things are not hid from YHVH

and I
YHVH
said unto him

whosoever slayeth thee
vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold

and IYHVHset a mark upon Cainlest any finding him should kill him

and Cain was shut out from the presence of YHVH
and with his wife
and many of his brethren dwelt in the land of nod
on the east of eden

Note there is no mention of priesthood – only that a mark and a different lifestyle would characterize Cain’s family from Seth’s family.

Ham’s curse:

To get from Cain’s mark to banning priesthood – we have to go through Ham:

and Noah began to be a husbandman
and he planted a vineyard
and he drank of the wine
and was drunken
and he was uncovered within his tent

and Ham
the father of Canaan
saw the nakedness of his father
and told his two brothers outside
and Shem and Japheth took a garment
and laid it upon both their shoulders
and went backward
and covered the nakedness of their father
and their faces were backward
and they saw not their father’s nakedness

and Noah awoke from his wine
and knew what his younger son had done unto him
and he said

cursed be Canaana servant of servants shall he beunto his brothers

and he said

blessed be YHVHgod of Shemand Canaan shall be his servantgod shall enlarge Japhethand he shall dwell in the tents of Shemand Canaan shall be his servant

Still no mention of priesthood restriction or black skin. In fact, if this curse means anything about the rights of the priesthood [given the servant/minister role of priests], there’s a case to be made that Canaan was being given the priesthood [being a servant of servants, a servant to his brothers] — though I think it’s more likely that the priesthood isn’t even part of this story at all.

There’s nothing about the rights of the priesthood until we get to Enoch’s prophecies:

and again YHVH said unto me

look

and I looked towards the north
and I beheld the people of Canaan
which dwelt in tents
and YHVH said unto me

prophesy

and I prophesied
saying

behold the people of Canaan
which are numerous
shall go forth in battle
array against the people of Shem
and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyedand the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the landand the land shall be barren and unfruitful
and none other people shall dwell there
but the people of Canaan
for beholdYHVH shall curse the land with much heatand the barrenness thereof shall go forth foreverand there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan
that they were despised among all people

and it came to pass
that YHVH said unto me

look

and I looked
and I beheld the land of Sharon and of Enoch and of Omner and of Heni and of Shem and of Haner and of Hanannihah
and all the inhabitants thereof
and YHVH said unto me

go to this people
and say unto them

repent

lest I come outand smite them with a curseand they die

and the record of Abraham:

now this king of egypt
was a descendant from the loins of Ham
and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birthfrom this descent sprang all the Egyptians
and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land

the land of egypt being first discovered by a woman
who was the daughter of Ham
and the daughter of Egyptus
which in the Chaldean language signifies egypt
which signifies that which is forbidden
when this woman discovered the land
it was under water
who afterward settled her sons in it
and thusfrom Hamsprang that racewhich preserved the curse in the land

now the first government of egypt was established by Pharaoh
the eldest son of Egyptus
the daughter of Ham
and it was after the manner of the government of Ham
which was patriarchal

Pharaoh
being a righteous man
established his kingdom
and judged his people wisely and justly all his days
seeking earnestly to imitate that order
established by the fathers in the first generations
in the days of the first patriarchal reign
even in the reign of Adam
and also of Noahhis fatherwho blessed him with the blessings of the earthand with the blessings of wisdombut cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood

now
Pharaohbeing of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood
notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah
through Ham
therefore my father was led away by their idolatry

The assumption is that Noah’s curse of Canaan is the curse pertaining to the priesthood mentioned in Abraham’s record.

However, that blessing/cursing was given to Pharaoh:

Pharaoh
being a righteous man
[…]
and also of Noahhis father
who blessed him with the blessings of the earth
and with the blessings of wisdom
but cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood
nowPharaoh
being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of priesthood […]

and we do not have any scriptural record for what Noah said to Pharaoh.

Cain/Ham/Canaan have nothing to do with black Africans:

In summation:

Cain’s mark mentions nothing about rights of the priesthood or about having black skin [because his descendants were Arabians]

Ham/Canaan’s curse [although mentioning the rights of the priesthood] is said to pertain to Egyptians [who aren’t black, but are Arabians]

Any appeal to Cain’s mark or to Ham’s curse is completely irrelevant with respect to black Africans and the priesthood because neither of them were black Africans. Cain and Ham would be the ancestors of Arabian people. Even though Egypt is technically in the continent of Africa [geographically-speaking] – Egyptians are Arabs [cultural/genetically-speaking].

Furthermore, even if it were possible to assert that the historical character named Cain [and/or Ham], is the forbearer of black Africans – to associate that with a priesthood-ban on them [by lineage], one would then have to demonstrate something that would be equally impossible to assert – i.e., that their lineage is also found in no other human-being on Earth.

You see, every generation back we go in time, the number of forebearers a person has increases at an exponential rate [2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 g-grandparents, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and so on]. So as a bit of mental exercise – let’s wind the clock back to 1400 AD [~30 generations]. At this point, the number of potential ancestors you would have (230) is two-times what the world population was at that same time.

When we re-wind the clock back to biblical time-periods [588, 1700, 2300, or 4000 BC] and ponder not only the exponential number of forebearers one will potentially have – but also how they have been scattered across the globe by things like the flood of Noah, the tower of Babel, the scattering of the 10 tribes of Israel, war, famine, persecution, etc. – it gets pretty silly to start talking about the odds that each-and-every African person alive today does not have even one of the “righteous” in their family tree and that each-and-every European person alive today does not have even one of the “cursed” in theirs?.

Racial distinctions in the gospel:

The best thing to do is to take it as granted that the current scriptural record we have in the Bible is a pretty incomplete picture concerning the affairs of God throughout the whole human race. The Bible is the book that’s come by way of the Jew and is their record — and so we find that it deals primarily with Arabians [go figure].

Until the scriptural record is more complete — until we receive the prophets of the other nations, tribes, and people, with their prophetic records that will come forth from Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands, etc. — we cannot speak with certainty of how God has dealt with the other races and if there are promises made to them that we know that of. Which is why the best thing to do [until then] is stick to an:

[god] hath made of one blood
all nations of men

and

there is neither jew
nor greek

approach to associating a state of righteousness or a cursed state to any of the races of human-kind that are around today. Because if we allow ourselves to be guided by a race-based rendering of something like:

the order of this priesthood was confirmed
to be handed down from father to son
and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed
to whom the promises were made

the sword of judgment cuts both ways. Personally, as a literal descendent of Scottish/Irish forebearers, who [as far as our scriptures tell us] received none of the “original promises” themselves – I’ll end-up cutting myself out too.

But to attempt to include myself as a European by saying something like the scattering of the lost 10 tribes would be sufficient to “count me in” to the blessed lineage — would also likely allow for the inclusion of a whole host of other races and nationalities that someone might be trying to separate themselves from in the first place.

[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men:

All races were [at one point] a single race — the family of Adam and Eve. The division into separate races has been a story of adaptation to unique human conditions, meaning all that we currently call “race” is a form of the miraculous human ability to adapt to the environmental conditions they find themselves in.

As a part of the restoration of all things — the gospel will be taken to every tribe, nations, kindred, tongue, etc. on the earth.

for behold
I say unto you
that Zion shall flourish
and the glory of YHVH shall be upon her
and she shall be an ensign unto the people
and there shall come unto her
out of every nation under heaven

As a part of the gathering of the people of the Lord – these human races will be brought back into the one, single human family. Meaning that since Zion will not be established by unrelated persons — every nation under heaven will become connected by and will b be engaging in inter-racial marriages.

Race is purely conventional – and has no application of eternal significance. The main component of what we use for racial distinction is skin color, which is composed largely of just two things:

Melanin, which is produced in the skin as a response to oxidative stress of UV light

Blood, which is visible through the skin in the vascular system

Now, a resurrected body has no need for protection from oxidative stress, and it will also not quickened with hemoglobin. Thus, the skin color will not appear as any mortal human on the earth has ever looked.

When the scriptures say that resurrected persons will come forth in either the resurrection of just or the resurrection of the unjust:

and [they] shall come forththey who have done goodin the resurrection of the just
and they who have done evilin the resurrection of the unjust

it is saying that there will only be two discernible groups [what we could call “races”] of human beings after the resurrection from the dead: the just and the unjust.

All those who come forth in the resurrection of the just will have a new body, patterned after the body of Christ, which is patterned after the body of God [meaning we’ll all have the same “genes”] – thus the color of their skin will all look exactly the same.

The fleshy-body that is sown in the earth upon death will arise as either wheat or tare [just or unjust], and this is according to the spirit that possessed that body at the time it died:

you do not sow the body that will be
but you sow bare grain
and it may chance be of wheat
or of some other grain

What makes a person “just” or “unjust” is not merits, nor lineage — but solely the state of the person’s right-brain-heart and their faith in Jesus Christ. God looks only upon the right-brain-heart of mankind, which is something that has nothing to do with their genetic lineage or any supposed curses on black Africans.

So, given a future state in which no resurrected bodies will be colored by melanin and hemoglobin, and given that God has made of one blood every nation of mankind from the beginning, and that, as far as the gospel is concerned, “there is neither Jew nor Greek” – any race-based exclusion from the gospel [or from the priesthood] based on such flimsy ground as being related to someone who lived over 5,000 years ago makes a pretty poor “hill-to-die-on”.

Looking up “black,” “blackness,” and “darkness” in the scriptures, these are the ones I found that mentioned it in the apparent context of skin color, plus a couple of other skin color scriptures.

Cain:

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. (Moses 7:22)/Genesis 7:29 (Inspired Version)

Canaan/Cainan:

For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. (Moses 7:8)

And there was a blackness came upon all the children of Cainan, that they were despised among all people. Genesis 7:10 (Inspired Version)

27 And Noah began to till the earth, and he was an husbandman; and he planted a vineyard, and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent;

28 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his brethren without; and Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid upon both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

29 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him, and he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

30 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men.

31 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. Genesis 9:27-31 (Inspired Version)

Lamanites:

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. (2 Nephi 5:21)

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers. (Jacob 3:8-9)

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; (3 Nephi 2:15)

Now, I have a question for you, Justin. In the context of the resurrection, what do Jacob’s words mean when he says, “I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God”? Does this refer to the resurrections of the just and unjust mentioned in the OP? Does it refer to a resurrection of the clean and the filthy still? Or does it refer to divisions within the resurrection of the clean (three degrees of glory)? Do the three degrees of glory have differences in skin color, or just in glory (plasma effect), such that “whiter” refers to “brighter,” etc.? Just wondering your thoughts on this verse.

Could you please explain why blacks were denied the priesthood if there was no reason for it?

I would attribute it to roughly the same reason polygamists are denied temple sealings when there is no reason for it.

In my estimation, LDS who were in favor of the slavery of Africans allowed the common justification that the rest of Gentile Christianity used to affect their opinions on the matter — thus they “supposed”, rather than actually asking [And they understood me not, for they supposed].

So, I just doubt that blacks were ever actually “denied” the priesthood [speaking as a matter of doctrine, not of actual church practice] — e.g., there’s the existence of black Africans on whom Joseph Smith conferred the Melchizedek priesthood.

Also, could you please explain the several quotes of early prophets esp. Brigham Young, regarding this matter?

That can largely be answered by my feelings stated above — e.g., that Brigham was speaking from a racist world-view — had his opinions been based on revelation, then I’d expect to see them canonized by the church.

Now, I have a question for you, Justin. In the context of the resurrection, what do Jacob’s words mean when he says:

“I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God”?

Does this refer to the resurrections of the just and unjust mentioned in the OP? Does it refer to a resurrection of the clean and the filthy still? Or does it refer to divisions within the resurrection of the clean (three degrees of glory)? Do the three degrees of glory have differences in skin color, or just in glory (plasma effect), such that “whiter” refers to “brighter,” etc.? Just wondering your thoughts on this verse.

When I wrote about the two discernible races of humans after the resurrection — I had in mind the absence of the coloring compounds that make-up our current range of skin pigmentation [the melanin, hemoglobin, adipose tissue, etc.], which would render the actual skin a sort-of a pale grey.

Though, I imagine it could also be literal white [not Caucasian white], white as in the color perceived when light waves stimulate all three types of color sensitive cells in retina in equal amounts and with a high brightness compared to the surroundings — the lightest possible color.

I think Jacob could potentially be referring to the magnitude of brightness with which the same whiteness of resurrected bodies of glory are emitting [the plasma effect you mentioned] — but given the over-all context of his sermon [which I believe is about the Lamanites opened to salvation, while the Nephites were headed for damnation], I think it’s more likely that he’s referring to a clean state of the Lamanites and a filthy-still state of the Nephites on the day of judgement.

wherefore
a commandment I give unto you
which is the word of God
that ye revile no more against them
because of the darkness of their skins
neither shall ye revile against them
because of their filthiness
but ye shall remember your own filthiness
and remember that their filthiness came
because of their fathers

goes well with this post too.

The Nephites were allowing the physical darkness of the skin of the Lamanites and the physical filthiness of their lifestyle — to fill them with such hatred towards them that it put the Nephites in danger of being resurrected with the dark skin of the resurrection of the unjust, being found spiritual filthy-still.

Now that I think more about it: the pale-grey color of human skin when it lacks any pigmentation is likely the dark/filthy color of the bodies of the resurrection of the unjust — and the literally/pure whiteness of skin [coupled with the degree of discharging brightness of that white] is likely the clean color of the bodies of the resurrection of the just.

and their curse was taken from them
and their skin became white
like unto the Nephites

from 3 Nephi. I think that suggests that the dark skin of the Lamanites was lifestyle-based [instead of genetic]. Meaning, the Nephites lived more “civilized” — with houses, perhaps bathing more often, covering up with more clothing, etc. While the Lamanites lived a bit more “wild” — darkened by tanner skin and a layer of dirt, etc.

Such a “darkness of skin” could be done away with within a single person’s lifespan [instead of multiple generations] by adopting the Nephite way of life.

Likewise the Lamanite “curse” could be passed on to any Nephite who joined with their tribes because he began living as they did [instead of passing only to his children by genetic descent]:

and it came to pass
that whosoever did mingle his seed
with that of the Lamanites
did bring the same curse upon his seed
therefore
whosoever suffered himself to be led away
by the Lamanites
was called under that headand there was a mark set upon him

Justin,
I was just going to leave this alone. I really was. I don’t like disagreeing with people as it’s so much more pleasant when we just joyfully learn from one another instead. I just can’t stop pondering all the things I’ve read and ultimately I decided that if what you say is true then Brigham Young is a horrid liar. So I am mainly replying here in his defense. I recall several speeches of his in the Journal of Discourses. However I don’t have the energy to find them all right now but please at least have a look at this…

I really doubt that Brigham Young and other early leaders would be swayed by what the rest of society thought.(that would fall more on the later leaders who lifted the ban IMO) It may be possible that Joseph Smith ordained blacks to priesthood before inquiring whether he should or not. As it seems to me if the Prophet was ordaining blacks then Pres. Young, Taylor, Woodruff etc… Would have followed suit or at least inquired of the Lord if they felt it was wrong.
Here also are a couple of quotes from Joseph Smith to consider. Now I know these beliefs weren’t canonized but if I have to choose between his understanding and yours I will have to choose his and that’s only because I know his character, having had it revealed to me in vision, and also having the testimony that he was a true prophet.

“After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind-wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this nature, as the fact is incontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!

“And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant.” —Genesis 9:25-27

“Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictate by his counsel.” (Joseph Smith Jr., Messenger and Advocate Vol. II, No. 7, April 1836, p. 290; History of the Church, Vol. 2, Ch. 30, pp. 436–40.)

“In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes or sons of Cain” (History of the Church 4:501.)

The Blacklds.org site is not an official site of the LDS Church. Nevertheless, it contains much useful information. For example, from its Blacks and the Priesthood page, it states:

Summary of Important Dates

1836: In March, Elijah Abel, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1836: In December, Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Seventy.
1844: Walker Lewis, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1846: William McCary, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1900: Enoch Abel, the son of Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1935: Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1958: All black Melanesians (Fijians) are given the priesthood (blacks in the Philippines even earlier)
1978: Revelation on Priesthood gives the priesthood to all worthy men regardless of color.
1990: Helvecio Martins becomes first black General Authority Seventy.
Additional blacks were ordained in the early years of the church.
For more information see the History Timeline.

Bodies celestial, terrestrial and telestial are said to be quickened with a portion of those respective glories, later to receive a fulness, whereas the bodies of the filthy still are said to be quickened without any glory. We know that those filthy still will be possessed by the spirit of the devil, which discharges in dark mode. I wonder if these sons of perdition, in their resurrection, will appear to be darker than just pale grey, due to the discharging spirit of the devil in their bloodless bodies. I wonder if they will appear as black in body as they appear in spirit. (I have seen evil or unclean spirits–I’m not sure which type they were–in a night vision, and they appeared as completely black, three-dimensional “silhouettes.”) The word “filthy” brings to my mind more than just unclean. It makes me think of excessive and repulsive dirtiness, as if every nook and cranny were covered in the most disgusting filth.

liv435 I would say the long and the short of it is that Brigham Young was race prejudice. And so were preponderance of the other early saints. This was a very common thing in the culture he was raised in. Even Abe Lincoln whom the wonderful American education system teaches us to think so highly of although he felt slavery was wrong he had no desire nor expectation that the slaves from Africa would ever associate in the same society as the white like himself. If you obtain the full text of one of his speeches concerning slavery he states that plainly.
Joseph Smith did ordain a man of African descent, Elijah Abel. Here is a link about it.

So we really can’t accuse him of believing the idea that blacks were not to have the priesthood. That didn’t start until 1853 under Brigham. in my investigation it is just plain race prejudice. When you are taught these ideas as a baby you can’t see them objectively. And when you are part of a church whose members adopt the idea, “I don’t care what these men do I will support them.” Then you have set yourself up for bad things like this to continue.

I just can’t stop pondering all the things I’ve read and ultimately I decided that if what you say is true then Brigham Young is a horrid liar.

It doesn’t have to be as extreme as that. Both men, Justin and Brigham, (and I might as well include Joseph, too,) may be very sincere in their beliefs, with no intention to deceive anyone. It may be that one is wrong and the other is right, in their assessment, or the truth may be something entirely different, meaning that both are wrong. Or both men may have gotten only part of the picture correct, or one man only got a part, while the other got no part correct. These are, after all, opinions and personal understandings concerning the scriptures. None of these men, Joseph, Brigham or Justin, ever produced any revelations claiming that their understanding and interpretation is the correct one, so we must treat such understandings in light of the scriptures, and not as revelations of God, in other words, as mere opinion.

I really doubt that Brigham Young and other early leaders would be swayed by what the rest of society thought.

We are all products of our upbringing and culture, regardless of how much we would like to disassociate from it and view the world objectively. Every saint and prophet from the beginning of the world was influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the culture he or she was raised in. If you are raised in a racist society, which was 19th-century America, chances are that you are going to adopt a racist worldview. Brigham and others were all converts to the church, and all the Christian churches, or many of them, were racist. Coming into Mormonism and finding scriptures that seem to affirm one’s racist background (in the Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and JST of Genesis) would only serve to confirm it as being the correct worldview.

The Abolitionists were the fringe elements of the time, viewed as completely nuts, and Mormons had a hard enough time with their polygamy practices and other beliefs ostracizing them, to add fuel to the fire by advocating abolition. In other words, Mormons went against the grain of society with many of their teachings, but with the black question, they could “in good conscience” side with society and not be tarred and feathered over it, because it appeared their scriptures had some semblance of allowance for it. Never mind that those scriptures spoke of events thousands of years ago and nothing in the modern revelations (the D&C), given specifically to the Gentiles, allowed a priesthood ban or supported slavery or indicated any racial preference for any of the gospel covenants. (In fact, the D&C specifically condemned slavery.) So, there is no revelation ever given for a priesthood ban in this dispensation, nor any revelation given in this dispensation concerning racial discrimination. But nevermind that.

Here also are a couple of quotes from Joseph Smith to consider. Now I know these beliefs weren’t canonized but if I have to choose between his understanding and yours I will have to choose his and that’s only because I know his character, having had it revealed to me in vision, and also having the testimony that he was a true prophet.

I also happen to know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, that being the very first revelation I ever received from the Holy Ghost. But that doesn’t mean that everything the man said was given to him of the Holy Ghost or was a correct understanding. There is the story of Joseph receiving a revelation which turned out to be false. He then inquired of the Lord (with the Urim and Thummim, I believe,) and received a revelation that some revelations are given of God, while others are given of the devil. Or something to that effect. This is in one of the recently published Joseph Smith Papers volumes. The point being that we are to treat everyone as if they had no title, and trust in no one’s arm of flesh. We are not to trust even those who claim to be prophets, or even those who we know for a fact, from the Holy Ghost, are prophets. That still doesn’t guarantee that everything that comes out of his mouth is going to be truth.

This is why canonization, and reliance upon the canonized word, is so important. There is an element of safety in canonization, that allows it to be trustworthy, despite the fact that the person who originally spoke the words is dead.

Alma’s admonition in Mosiah 23:14 applies to living men, or men you personally know. It is impossible to know whether a dead man you never knew was walking in the ways of God at any particular moment of his life in which he voiced a particular opinion concerning this or that. But if the man is living, and you know him, and you can see his behavior, hear his words, and feel the power of the Holy Ghost as he speaks, then you can judge him to be a man of God and trust his words at that moment.

I don’t want to gang-up on your opinion for Brigham Young. I don’t think him a horrible liar, or anything of the sort. My first thought when I read what you wrote was as LDSA said:

It doesn’t have to be as extreme as that.

I’m perfectly willing to grant that someone is both a good and decent person and a prophet — while at the same time still managing to be wrong about something from time-to-time when giving their own opinion/interpretation.

I may be wrong about my thoughts about race and the priesthood — and my egalitarian view could likely come from the time and place I’ve grown up in [post-slavery, post-segragation], and not be a correct interpretation of the scriptures I quoted in this post.

I’d hope that if I am shown to be wrong — that we could all allow me the benefit of the doubt, and not consider me a horrid liar.

But — in light of all of this liv435 — can you tell me what the scriptures that seem to destroy all racial distinctions in the gospel, e.g.:

[God] hath made of one blood
all nations of men

and

there is neither jew
nor greek

mean to you — or what they mean in light of a priesthood ban on black Africans? And how was withholding the temple rituals from black LDS families any different than the current practice of withholding them from polygamous LDS families?

The mark for sin is not blackness but hair(Leviticus) Blackness has to do with weekness, like children are week in manythings and need protection against certain things. Black people were protected by the Lord. If someone would murder a black person, the punishment was seven times higher. If a child is abused, then the punishment should be higer then normally. Afrika means A free Ka = a free soul.( My father’s soul) Jesus made them free. It wasn’t discrimination but protection. It took almost 6000 years to prepare them. This also counts for the most other races, In the dark ages, allmost nobody had the priesthood. They weren’t prepared and ready also. There are more reasons, but it has all to do with God’s love for everybody.

Dear everyone who disagrees with me,
If you read the statements Brigham Young made, you will notice that he says, “I know” several times. He says “if no PROPHET said it before I will say it now” “they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure” He also says “I say it in the name of Jesus Christ.”
So I would suggest it as fair to say that if he was wrong then he is most definitely a liar. Even a “horrible liar” for the fact that he lied in the name of Jesus Christ.

I know that Jesus urges all , black and white, bond and free, male and female to come unto Him. I wouldn’t argue with that at all, and I truly believe that their are blacks out there who are much better than I and on a better standing before the Lord than I. What we’re talking about here is a priesthood issue. I know Joseph Smith ordained at least one black man to the priesthood. The history is very sketchy and unreliable so I hesitate to write it but their are accounts from early church members and leaders that Joseph Smith later taught against this. Also, according to Joseph F Smith that he (the Prophet Joseph) considered the ordination of Elijah Abel “null and void”

I have my own Belief on why the priesthood is withheld and I will say it has to do with
the PRE-existence and the blacks own choices on whether or not they wanted the responsibility. But that is beside the point. I have not received revelation on the matter myself, only inspiration. Which is enough for me to encourage my children to not mix with blacks. Believe it or not I have several colored friends and somehow they still love me despite my beliefs:)

As far as “trusting the arm of flesh” well, that’s just silly. I am and independent fundamentalist Mormon. There is less chance of me trusting in man than your average LDS;) I do believe proper respect and consideration should be given to men who you have testimony are prophets. Because I haven’t received revelation on this matter and have only studied the words of other men(including you Justin)I will come to an understanding based on what rings truer as well as who I have more respect for. Not to say I don’t respect you, I just don’t know you. I do agree with a lot of your posts here on this blog though and have enjoyed them.

As far as the difference between withholding temple rituals from blacks being different than withholding them from polygamists? As far as I’m concerned that is just more evidence of the apostasy of the LDS church. I think it was very convenient that a “revelation” is received allowing blacks to hold the priesthood just when there was a great deal of societal and government pressure on the church to lift the ban. Including threats against BYU students grants and the tax exempt status of the church to name just two. I’d also bet the farm that if society and the government ever comes to battle against the church to let poly’s in the temple they would eventually receive another “revelation” allowing it. I don’t see that happening any time soon. What I do see possibly happening though is the church being pressured into letting women hold priesthood. Time will tell.

Another thing to consider is the
letter from the first presidency to Prof. Lowry Nelson, a liberal Mormon professor, in 1947 where they refer to the priesthood ban as “church doctrine”

I admit I have a lot to learn and I do thank you all for your kind responses on this very touchy subject.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind

from Brigham, just sounds racist to my ears — and, other than the fact that Brigham Young said it, I see no reason to believe that something like that is the word of God.

So — unless I can support his statements about black Africans with the canonized word of God that I have as a standard to judge all doctrine and practice — I still assert they are his opinions on the matter and seem to have been mostly colored by the conditions found among men during his lifetime [the opinions and interpretations of the residue of Christianity that supported the slave trade from Africa].

And even then — does Brigham not create a large enough “expediency” loop-hole for Spencer ceasing the racial distinctions made against black Africans by saying something like:

We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.”

Meaning — if we could grant that Brigham’s views on black Africans were inspired by the spirit of prophecy and revelation — could we not then say that Spencer received revelation that it was no longer expedient for them to “welter under that curse”?

With something like this:

I think it was very convenient that a “revelation” is received allowing blacks to hold the priesthood just when there was a great deal of societal and government pressure on the church to lift the ban.

we end up pitting our favorite church presidents against each other. You would stick with Brigham over Spencer [calling him, essentially, a “horrid liar” for claiming to have had an actual revelation from God and moving to have a declaration of that revelations canonized] — while others would stick with Spencer over Brigham.

I’d rather not play that game.

Given a future state in which no resurrected bodies will be colored by melanin and hemoglobin — and given that God has made of one blood every nation of mankind since the beginning — and that, as far as the gospel is concerned, there are no racial distinctions [neither Jew nor Greek] — I think that any race-based exclusion from the gospel [or from the priesthood, the temple, etc.], especially when it gets based on such flimsy ground as being related to someone who lived over 5,000 years ago, makes a pretty poor “hill-to-die-on”.

I appreciated that you said:

Not to say I don’t respect you, I just don’t know you. I do agree with a lot of your posts here on this blog though and have enjoyed them.

and I wouldn’t want to dwell on a disagreement over such a matter as this.

So — I’ll move-on by asking you about:

Any appeal to Cain’s mark or to Ham’s curse is completely irrelevant with respect to black Africans and the priesthood because neither of them were black Africans.

Cain and Ham would be the ancestors of Arabian people. Even though Egypt is technically in the continent of Africa [geographically-speaking] – Egyptians are Arabs [cultural/genetically-speaking].

Furthermore, even if it were possible to assert that the historical character named Cain [and/or Ham], is the forbearer of black Africans – to then associate that with a priesthood-ban on them [by lineage], one would have to then demonstrate something that would be equally impossible to assert – i.e., that their lineage is also found in no other human-being on Earth.

How do we tie the scriptures about Cain and Ham to black Africans, when those men were the ancestors of Arabian people?

How do we ban priesthood to people in their family tree — when at this stage in the game the likelihood that you or I have a shared ancestry with them is quite high?

Justin,
I started to pull out my books so I could study up and find evidence to back my beliefs. But, ultimately, my heart’s not in it. I will prayerfully consider everything you’ve said as I’m not the type to drive in stakes so far that I can’t pull them out again if necessary. With the exception of course of what I know to be true through direct revelation. You and I come from totally different backgrounds. I come from the perspective of John Taylors revelation in 1886. Whereas you come from a perspective of sustaining Pres. Monson as prophet seer and revelator. Hard to reconcile the two perspectives. I’m not as critical of the church as other fundamentalists(I do believe the priesthood is still there to some degree)however I have to admit that I definitely have my suspicions as far as the “prophet” status of every president since Joseph F. Smith. That being said, I think I’ll go ahead and jump back over to 2008 which is where I was on th blog chronology:) and continue reading and learning from all the posts on this blog. Thanks again.

I recommend that you read through the two timelines I hyperlinked. They show that this wasn’t a church doctrine, at all, but a church policy. The only time the first presidency ever refers to the priesthood ban as a doctrine is in the following, of which I’ll quote a snippet from one of the timelines:

1949: The First Presidency issues a statement that frames the question of priesthood as “the attitude of the Church”:

“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization.”

However, the First Presidency does not (and cannot) produce any such document purporting to be a direct revelation or commandment, nor does the general body of Saints ever publically raise their hands to sustain any such document, which is the regular practice of the Church in accepting official scripture. The First Presidency continues later in the statement to say that “the details of this principle have not been made known.”

In other words, the church merely believed that the priesthood ban policy was a commandment simply because “there is a priesthood ban in the true church” and not because there is a revelation given that authorizes a priesthood ban. So, since the church is true, the priesthood ban, which miraculously appears at some point in the timeline of the church, must be true, also.

(Again, the statement is careful not to say that the priesthood ban is a direct commandment of the Lord. Instead it says, “The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes…is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord.” In other words, the statement is declaring that it is merely the belief of the membership and leadership of the church that this policy is a commandment, and not a policy.)

What we get, then, is every president and apostle of the church, from Brigham Young onward, trying to justify and explain the existence of this magically appearing priesthood ban, and explain away the strange anomalies, such as the ordinations of blacks with Joseph Smith’s approval, and the other ordinations of blacks from the time of Joseph Smith to the time of the 1978 revelation (see the timelines to see all these other black ordinations.)

Now, the “attitude of the church” at the start of the priesthood ban was racist, conforming to the racist upbringing of 19th-century America, showing that culture has a lot to due with gospel views. For example, polygamy was a hot topic before, during and after the time Joseph received his revelation about polygamy. (See the Joseph Fought Polygamy book.) Many of the members coming into the church at that time were, interestingly enough, pro-polygamy, from previous experiences with it.

When the priesthood ban policy was finally discontinued, the “attitude of the church” generally conformed to the change in racial views happening in 20th-century America. The membership still defended the priesthood ban, for it still believed it to be true (because the church was true), but it desired the change in policy that eventually occurred. Most members joyously accepted the policy change, with a minority who still clung to the “old attitude of the church” that it was a direct commandment given of the Lord (without a single revelation) and thus, that the church leadership sinned in enacting the change.

However, this cannot be true, because the Lord does not give doctrine save by revelation, which must be canonized in order for it to be binding upon the membership. But this is exactly how “the commandments of men” (D&C 46:7) are typically given, even without canonization, by appealing to the man’s authority and high-sounding title.

So, what we have before us is a priesthood ban that came into existence without the existence of any recorded or claimed or canonized revelation, without protest from any member of the church, for their “attitude” was in agreement. And the discontinuance of a priesthood ban by a claim of revelation (and all 15 men claimed to have simultaneously received the same revelation), which they then wrote up a statement and asked for a church-wide vote on it with subsequent canonization of the statement. Which act conforms better to the written word of God? Which act has the appearance of a commandment of men? Which act utilizes both the keys of the priesthood and the keys of the church?

If you read the statements Brigham Young made, you will notice that he says, “I know” several times. He says “if no PROPHET said it before I will say it now” ”they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure” He also says “I say it in the name of Jesus Christ.”
So I would suggest it as fair to say that if he was wrong then he is most definitely a liar. Even a “horrible liar” for the fact that he lied in the name of Jesus Christ.

This is the reason why I brought up Joseph Smith receiving a false revelation. Just because the Holy Ghost has told me someone is a prophet of God doesn’t mean everything the man says is going to be accurate or even true. Everything must be judged on its own merits, not on past laurels.

To give you another example, take Lehi. I know Lehi was a prophet of God. And Nephi did, too. But had everyone followed Lehi’s example as recorded in 1 Ne. 16;20, the whole party would have perished. Luckily one member of the party, namely, Nephi, did not “follow the prophet.” Because he did not follow in his father’s footsteps, he was able to get the party to become humble again by speaking to them.

So, any time someone says, “I know,” we should hear, “I believe I know.” For that is what it really is, a belief that one knows. It may be a true belief or a false belief, but it should still be considered a belief. Who is to decide whether it is a true or false belief? We are, the listeners. The preacher is already decided, or set in his or her belief that he or she knows. So, the listener becomes the judge whether something stated is true or not. But this does not mean that if a man claims to know something, which turns out to be false, that he is intentionally trying to deceive. He may be intentionally trying to deceive, or he may be sincere in his belief that he knows.

Brigham has always struck me as an honest, sincere individual. People use the name of Christ all the time (such as in prayers), truly believing that they are using the name in a way that is approved by God, but that also does not constitute a lie or intent to deceive. As far as I know, Brigham has never claimed to be a prophet, and I suspect that he wasn’t. Even the saying, “if no PROPHET said it before I will say it now” is not a claim to be a prophet, merely that he will state what the prophets have not stated. In other words, all of this is still just an affirmation of his belief, of his opinion on the matter. Back then people used language such as “but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure” all the time. This was a nature of speaking back then. It doesn’t have to mean he received, in the very moment, a revelation, and pulled down eternal words from God right then and there. No, he could just be paraphrasing Haggai or some other prophet and launching his own twist to it.

Did Brigham ever receive any revelations? He believed he did. Are any of those revelations binding on us? Only insofar as they are canonized. And that’s the point. Everything outside of the canon (the standard works) is non-standard and must be measured by the standard. Anyone in this church is entitled to his or her own opinion on any matter, including presidents and apostles of the church. But voicing an opinion, even a strongly worded opinion using the name of Christ and claiming revelation, is still just an opinion.

The RLDS church (now CoC) understands this well, since they, apparently, have people stand up in their meeting giving “prophecies” and “revelations” all the time. None of this must be accepted carte blanche. We must try the spirits in all things.

As I understand it, the OP attempts to do just that, by reviewing the scriptures with the policy, and finds that there is an insufficiency in the scriptures to warrant the policy. In other words, the scriptures are not sufficiently clear in showing that the policy comes from a canonical commandment and doctrine, therefore the priesthood ban must have come from a non-canonical source. And that is where the problem lies.

In case of difficulty respecting doctrine or principle, if there is not a sufficiency written to make the case clear to the minds of the council, the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation. (D&C 102:23)

It cannot, then, be a doctrine, for that conflicts with church governance requirements. But it can be a policy, for the leadership has complete control over who receives, or does not receive, the priesthood. When viewed through the perspective of the church and priesthood keys, it becomes plain that it was the agency of the leaders and members of Brigham’s time that initiated the ban, and the agency of the leaders and members of Spencer’s time that discontinued it, after the leadership had inquired and obtained the mind of the Lord by revelation.

Ok I just got to jump into the middle of this cainanite priesthood thing because I think the fact that the church (Pres. Kimball) gave the priesthood to the African race is one of the biggest blunders the church has ever made! And is typical of the latter day apostacy. And it is evidence if the strong delusion that the Saints are under.

Yes Joseph Smith at one one time ordained a black African American to the Priesthood, please Justin if you use this example tell the whole story, and that is that Joseph in tears and great humilty went back to this brother and explained that he had made a great mistake and removed his priesthood!

I know with Justin that his whole point is that you cannot by lineage trace the black race back to Cain via the scriptures. However Bro. Brigham was quite clear and emphatic that the black race were decsendents of Cain, he even went so far as to give a physical description of the modern decsendents of Cain.

Now was Bro Brigham a inspired prophet of God or was he not? That I guess you will have to decide for yourselves.

I find the circumstances and events at the time “June of 1978″ not in harmony with Gods timeing of makeing such a change. When did God every bow to mans demands? The communist influence in America was demanding their version of equality. This influnce spilled over into violence with the BYU sports agenda, BYU team buses were being trashed on a regular basis. President Jimmy Carter had told Pre. Kimball that the federal government was going to sue the church if they didn’t give the priesthood to the blacks.

Now I know that the God I worship does not bend over backwards for anyone or anything that is not on His agenda.

In my view the chuch violated protocal when it revealled their intentions and decision to the liberal news media before even giving the saints a chance to sustain it! Not only that they took Brigham Young totally out of context when the quoted only the first part of one of his discourses. Had they printed the very next sentence no one would have accepted their version of things.So they flat out lied! In law enforcement this is called the”:poison tree principle” if they lied in the first place to make a point then the whole thing is a lie!

One of my biggest questions to polygamous groups is why do they accept this false doctrine when they know the church has a history of deception, I can only guess it fits a particular agenda.

Equality from Gods perspective began from the foundations of the world why else do you have claim to certain covenants in this life while others whither and die in far off third world countries with no knowledge of the gospel? If not, then God is a partial God and a respector of persons.

If the priesthood was denied anchiently to a particular race then it behoves us today to know who that race is. D&C 86-9 tells us that there are those that are”lawful heirs according to the flesh” so it stands to reason that if there are lawful heirs then there are unlawful heirs according to the flesh! There are only three gene pools from the time of the flood and Noah, these are represented by Ham, Japeth and Shem. The covenant lineage came through Shem, the gentiles came through Japeth. We know that the gentiles and of course the lineage of Shem are lawful heirs to the priesthood. So I ask you how hard is this to understand. Brigham Yound identified the modern black race as those unlawful heirs to the priesthood.

There is a prophecy found in D&C 85 that has been fulfilled in our time, verse 11 speaks of those of the high priesthood that will apostatize and also of their punishment which it refers to Ezra chap 2 verses 61&62. In Ezra it tells of some children that could not prove their lineage and were put from the priesthood. So the crime shall fit the punishment, by inference the crime being that by sanctioning the desegregation of the priesthood and its consequences of interracial marriage

Sorry about how my last entry ended, my computer skills are not the best. Any how Ezra chap.2 is tied in with the 85th sec. of the D&C speaking of a future prophecy which in my estimation came to past June of 1978. It is there in black and white and I recommend that you real all of Ezra as this theme really hits home in the 9th and chapters.

Yes Joseph Smith at one one time ordained a black African American to the Priesthood, please Justin if you use this example tell the whole story, and that is that Joseph in tears and great humilty went back to this brother and explained that he had made a great mistake and removed his priesthood!

There are only three gene pools from the time of the flood and Noah, these are represented by Ham, Japeth and Shem. The covenant lineage came through Shem, the gentiles came through Japeth. We know that the gentiles and of course the lineage of Shem are lawful heirs to the priesthood. So I ask you how hard is this to understand. Brigham Yound identified the modern black race as those unlawful heirs to the priesthood.

Can you demonstrate that you have no Hamite genes in your blood Anon? Can you demonstrate that an American of black African decent has any less Japethite or Shemite genes in his blood than you do?

The problem I have with any racial purity doctrine is that if we aren’t too careful — we can end-up cutting our own selves out of the elite pure-blood circle we’ve drawn.

So, what we have before us is a priesthood ban that came into existence without the existence of any recorded or claimed or canonized revelation, without protest from any member of the church, for their “attitude” was in agreement. And the discontinuance of a priesthood ban by a claim of revelation (and all 15 men claimed to have simultaneously received the same revelation), which they then wrote up a statement and asked for a church-wide vote on it with subsequent canonization of the statement.

Which act conforms better to the written word of God?

Which act has the appearance of a commandment of men?

Which act utilizes both the keys of the priesthood and the keys of the church?

As I understand it, the OP attempts to do just that, by reviewing the scriptures with the policy, and finds that there is an insufficiency in the scriptures to warrant the policy.

In other words, the scriptures are not sufficiently clear in showing that the policy comes from a canonical commandment and doctrine, therefore the priesthood ban must have come from a non-canonical source. And that is where the problem lies.

That’s well put.

The whole issue of black Africans comes [scripturally-speaking] out of no-where for me. The scriptures that we have simply don’t have much to say on the dealings of God with the black Africans, Asians, Austrian aboriginals, Inuit, Eastern and Western Europeans, Pacific Islanders, etc.

Historically-speaking — black Africans only enter these various interpretive-schemes once Europeans and Americans began the slave trade [as a way to justify their subjugation]. I failed to find a single scripture that tied any sort of priesthood/temple ban from black Africans — only sermons and quotes from church leaders that read exactly like the common Southern Baptist scriptural expositions on the justification for African slavery.

The Book of Mormon is a type or shadow of things that will occur in the last or latter-days. That being true, it would not be surprising to me to witness a repeat of righteous blacks preaching the gospel to wicked, apostate whites, such as what occurred in the 63rd year of the reign of the judges (Helaman 6:1-6.) The Lord likes to turn “things upside down” (2 Ne. 27:7), after all. As these black Lamanites preached with “exceedingly great power and authority,” they obviously held priesthood power and manifested the power of the Holy Ghost.

I wonder if the people of the Lord will react as the Nephites did in the 86th year of the reign of the judges, when black Samuel, a Lamanite, went among the white Nephite populations, and preached repentance and prophesied? Will they reject their message and their priesthood and the power of the Holy Ghost in them, and all the miracles they will work in the name of the Lord, because of this firm belief in a priesthood ban that has no scriptural moorings? Will the Lord justify them in such a belief?

I chuckle at the irony, should that happen, for it would, indeed, be a fulfillment of a servant of servants prophecy. For, if the servants are the priesthood, who serve by being prophets, seers, revelators and translators to the world and to the saints, then the servant of servants would be a second group of priesthood which are also prophets, seers, revelators and translators, that prophesy to the first group of priesthood servants. And why would the Lord need such a second group if not to call the first to repentance for the blindness of their minds and the hardness of their hearts, for their arrogance and pride in their supposed priesthood? Methinks there is good reason why the Gentiles are slated to be destroyed…

(I’m just thinking out loud. Please don’t take what I wrote here as a prophecy. Unless you want to, that is.)

behold
Jesus came
and stood in the midst
and ministered unto them
[3 Nephi 19:15]

let this mind be in you
which was also in christ Jesus
who
being in the form of God
thought not to cling to equality with God
but emptied himself of reputation
and took upon him the form of a servant
and was made in the likeness of men
[Philippians 2:5-7]

and of the men and women who are in Jesus Christ:

if any man desire to be first
the same shall be last of all
and servant of all
[Mark 9:35]

and whosoever of you
who would be the chiefest
shall be servant of all
[Mark 10:44]

I always thought the “servant of servants” curse of Canaan was an engaging and often over-looked insight.

Since Kimball doesn’t come up much as a topic anymore, I’d like to just state for the record that there have been three presidents of the church I, personally, have received revelation about, concerning their prophetic calling. One was Joseph Smith, one was Spencer W. Kimball and the last was Ezra Taft Benson. The manifestation on Kimball came in kind of a strange way. I was on my mission and I found an Ensign article, written in a language I didn’t know, but sufficiently close to the language of my mission, that I was somehow able to figure out what it said anyway. I picked up the magazine because of the interest I had in the unknown language, not because of an interest in the content. As I read the article, not even knowing how to pronounce the words, but determining their meaning anyway, the Holy Ghost fell upon me and testified that the man who wrote it was one of the Lord’s holy prophets. It happened to have been Kimball.

So, I never prayed about Kimball, but the Spirit confirmed both the truth of his written words, translated into a language I didn’t know but was somehow able to read, and also confirmed to me his prophetic calling. You can take that for what it’s worth.

You know Anon as an explanation of Joseph Smith’s beliefs and actions your story of Joseph giving the priesthood to one black man and then removing it doesn’t jive with historical fact. Elijah Abel ( you just have to click on the link in my lst comment) continued to serve as a missionary in the office of a seventy till his death. So that is a glaring fact that no one ever removed his priesthood.
This reminds me of when i was on my mission. It was 1974. So blacks and the priesthood was hot topic already. I was teaching a single woman with a stake missionary. This was the first discussion I beleive and she had done some reading and had questions beyond what the ‘discussion” covered.
She asked about blacks and the priesthood. I always felt a little bad about this “doctrine” in those days because I had no feelings that skin color or parental descent had direct correlation to righteousness or the person’s attributes and qualities other than appearance. I was believing it and trying to explain it because i was “following the brethren” in one of their zero revalation traditions.
I started explaining it as best I could. I used the rational that only one of the tribes of Israel was given the priesthood. That really isn’t accurate it was the Levitcal and there were many men outside the Levites who had the melchizedek preisthood. But I didn’t understand that at the time.
Well this lady wasn’t buying what I was saying. So the older brother with me the stake missionary kind of butted in and started explaining things his way.
“Well you see”, he sarted, “The blacks aren’t like the whites. Their skulls are much thicker and this makes their brains much smaller. So they don’t have the capacity for thought like….”
I was so shocked that I snapped my head to look at this racists bastard. Now I shouldn’t say that I have no idea if his parents were married or not. But the other half of my “slur” is a hard and simple fact. As sure as the sun shines he was racist.
And then while I was looking speechless at this guy myhead was snapped back just as quickly when our contact said to the effect, “Oh yeah sure that makes sense.”
I did not exercise any faith to try and have that woman join the church. I didn’t want her in the church. And she did not get baptized while I was there.
That stupid man made policy and ban was never capable of exact administration beyond the whims of some men. As Justin said you can not prove you have no Hammite blood in you. And it cannot be “proved” to any reasonable person that the ban was scripturally sound. What was the ban Africans? The very term is meaningless. There are white Africans. Now you might say “You know what I mean!” Do I ? Do you know what the meaning is? Well you might say the black skinned people. I say which ones? How about Papua New Guinea? Many there have the darkest skin and the widest, flattest noses of any human on the planet. Yet there never was a priesthood ban on them because it was said they were from the Lamanites. How did the brethren know?
So to me it frankly proves at least one thing. Anyone who holds to the idea that some group of humans who according very clear statements of the scriptures did in fact keep their first estate should now in this the second estate be denied the power by which they can progress anyone who believes in that idea does so because they were taught to be partial towards some of their brothers and sisters. They have been taught that they are “better” or “superior” even if just in this life to someone else.
Good luck getting into the Celestial world with that idea intact.
I would suggest quite bluntly that each person use this past “doctrine” of the LDS church as a very reliable test. Like a test for some illness the doctors perfom. I believe if you still think there should be a group of people who because of who their parents were should be denied access to the blessings of God in this life you can say without a shadow of a doubt that you are race prejudice.

Did Brigham Young receive revelation? Have you read section 136 in the D&C? Well, it was canonized so it has to be true! I, however, tend to believe that the church consenting (or not consenting) to proposed policies or doctrinal changes does not automatically make them the “will of the Lord” have you ever actually read the “revelation” banning plural marriage? If I recall correctly the language used was “I, therefore as president of the church…”, “I deny…”, “My instructions”, “I hereby declare…”, I preside…”, “My advice is”…Seriously not one word indicating this came from the Lord. Also just FYI the Salt Lake Tribune listed the names of 200 new polygamists in the church on October 10, 1910. Six of whom were members of the quorum of the twelve! Obviously the manifesto has been misunderstood and was not a revelation. Similar “manifestos” were presented to John Taylor who replied that they were straight from the devil and he would rather suffer his tongue be cut out than to sanction such a thing.

So here’s my question…where is the revelation regarding blacks and the priesthood? If I could read the words of the Lord(revelation) rather than just being told of the presidencies feelings(inspiration) it would help me a lot.

I admit that I am feeling a bit indignant right now as I don’t appreciate being labeled as a racist. I (and most likely the anonymous poster above) am a seeker of TRUTH. Whatever form it may come in. I refuse to roll over and accept any man’s ideas based solely on the position they hold or how many people vote in favor. I will seek truth from the source of all truth.

According to our scriptures there is preferential treatment based on the pre-existence “…he [God] said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou was chosen before thou wast born…And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate…” (Abraham 3:23, 26)

Also DCY, it would appear from our own scriptures that God is racist, “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark…which was a curse upon them because of their transgression against their brethren…therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preservehis people…” (Alma 3:6,8)

What is up with that? And why did Jesus respond to the Canaanite woman the way he did? Oh and why can’t I hold the priesthood and leadership positions? Why does my husband get to be the head? It’s not fair! Wahhh! Maybe I’ll start a big protest and bomb the church, and walk up and down the tabernacle yelling. Or refuse to watch BYU sports etc… Until a “revelation” is received to change the LDS anti-women policies.

LDSA,
Wasn’t the whole “servant of servants” thing a curse? How can it be a curse to serve a mission…and call people to repentance? Just curious.

I will ask in advance for forgiveness for my outburst. I don’t lose my cool very often, so when I do I must be heard! Lol.

I feel to say that I am not seeking to prove myself right as I have not received a witness one way or the other on this issue. My point is that there are a lot of things to consider and with the information we have it is quite logical to make assumptions. So to call me or anyone else a racist because we may have an idea of how things are (a perfectly logical, scripturally based) idea is unfair and uncalled for.

D&C 136, exactly. That should be the extent we use to quote Brigham Young on doctrine. Everything apart from section 136 should be considered his opinion. And that same standard should be applied to every president and apostle of the church since that time to now.

OD #1. I’m with you on that one, too. A bunch of suggestions, is all it is.

So here’s my question…where is the revelation regarding blacks and the priesthood? If I could read the words of the Lord(revelation) rather than just being told of the presidencies feelings(inspiration) it would help me a lot.

That was my feeling, too. I said it was 15 men, but I think two apostles were absent, so it was 13 men who felt a manifestation of the Holy Ghost indicating that the ban should be discontinued. But from what I read (and I recommend reading that excellent article I linked to above), it does not appear to have been a “thus saith the Lord” kind of revelation, but merely intelligence communicated to all these men simultaneously concerning this one thing. So, I don’t think they could have written it down as a direct quote from the Lord, because it seems to have been given as an understanding.

Now, I’ve had those types of revelations before, so I can understand the process. And this is likely the reason why the declaration was worded as it was. Had they received a “thus saith the Lord” revelation, I’m sure they would have written it down and presented that to the church. It is interesting that this experience changed their minds in an instant, for many of them were supportive of the priesthood ban.

Had I been a member of the church at the time of this declaration, I would have raised my hand in opposition and called for them to bring forth the text of the revelation, which I suspect they would have said that they couldn’t, since it wasn’t given as a text, and then I would have sustained the action. For these kinds of revelations are just as valid as revelations that are received and put into words.

At any rate, the church keys were exercised in favor and acceptance of the revelation, and its canonization, therefore, it is binding upon the people. See here for more on church keys.

Those Abraham scriptures have come up on this blog before and may have a different meaning than what is typically thought. See this.

LDSA,
Wasn’t the whole “servant of servants” thing a curse? How can it be a curse to serve a mission…and call people to repentance? Just curious.

Yes, the text says, “Cursed be Canaan.” But the biblical record is obviously incomplete. You don’t curse your grandson for what your son has done. You curse your son for his iniquities and you leave blessings upon your grandson, despite the wickedness of his father. This is the gospel pattern, as demonstrated by 2 Nephi 4:3-9. Cursings come because of iniquities. So, we have this statement, “Cursed be Canaan,” and then we have a prophecy that Canaan shall be a “servant of servants unto his brothers.” Is the prophecy the curse? Or is the prophecy separate from the curse? Everyone supposes that the prophecy is the curse, but since the Bible is incomplete, can we say this with certainty, given that the text does not support the gospel pattern?

This priesthood ban thing just highlights the fact that we in the church of God are much like the Jews of old, supposing we know of ourselves the correct interpretation of all things, without inquiring of the Lord to get revelation and knowledge concerning ancient things. See here.

I was referring to DCY’s comment above. Even his missionary companion deserves the benefit of the doubt. I mean obviously he was wrong about black people but why did he think that way? Calling him a “racist bastard”? For a belief that could possibly have easily be swayed with a proper explanation from someone who has enough of the spirit of God to refrain from using such hateful language. DCY wrote that man off as surely as the man wrote the black woman off. So who’s better?

LDSA,
You have no idea how much I appreciate your patience. I did read that article and most likely because of long steeped traditions I found myself severely picking the entire thing apart. That’s where I’m coming from. Here’s a small example. Most polygamists(groups and independents)do not believe the church has priesthood. I believed so much I thought I knew it! Well one day I happened to be visiting my LDS brother 300 miles from home and was very ill. He offered to give me a blessing. I didn’t want to hurt his feelings and I figured what could it hurt? At the very least I could consider it a prayer of faith. Well when he laid his hands on my head and proceeded to bless me I had the spirit of the Lord come over me and witness to me that he does in fact have the priesthood! What an idea! I told my husband about it later and he had the same witness. But that’s what it took to undo years of tradition. So if I’m wrong on this, and husband agrees, it will take nothing less than the Lord to confirm it. No amount of articles or quotes or meanness will help. So yet again I shall leave this post as I already have a lot to ponder and pray about.

Here are the first three given definitions of the noun race from my dictionary. There are actually 10 given definitions, but only the first 3 apply to man.

race, n. [F. race, fr. It. razza; of uncert. origin.] 1. The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed; also, more broadly, a class or kind of individiduals with common characteristics, interests, appearance, habits, or the like, as if derived from a common ancestor; as, the race of doctors; the race of birds.

The whole race of mankind
Whence the long race of Alban fathers come.Shak. Dryden.

2.Ethnol. A division of mankind possessing constant traits, transmissible by descent, sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type; a permanent variety of the genus Homo. While each race is presumably sprung from a common ancestry, there exist to-day few tribes or individuals of unmixed origin. See MAN, 1.

3. State of being one of a special people or ethnical stock; hence, more narrowly, state of belonging to a particular group or family; also, the qualities, features, etc., resulting from this; as, the Hebrew race, of noble race.

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that race differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So, with all that in mind, I’d say that the priesthood ban was not a manifestation of racism (was not racist) based upon the first definition of the word racism, but was racist based upon the second definition of the word racism (racial discrimination.)

So, there are two kinds of racists. A person could be one and not the other, or could be both. Based upon dyc4557’s description of his companion’s words, it would appear that his companion was, indeed, a racist, according to the first definition of racism. Whereas the church’s priesthood ban was only based upon the second shade of meaning. So, maybe the companion thought that the priesthood ban was based on the first shade and went with that? Who knows?

Anyway, back to these definitions. I found this part of the dictionary definition quite interesting, as it supports the OP’s premise: “While each race is presumably sprung from a common ancestry, there exist to-day few tribes or individuals of unmixed origin.” That was written in 1913.

In it, I found that [anthropologically-speaking] the use of the classification of “race” to divide human genetic diversity into different groups — rather than being the variation within a single group — is currently still controversial.

To quote part of the wiki article I just linked to above:

They conclude that students of human evolution would be better off avoiding the word race, and instead describe genetic differences in terms of populations and [phenotypic variations of the same genes].

Which is also my feelings on “racial” diversity — which is why I wrote:

All races were [at one point] a single race — the family of Adam and Eve.

The division into separate races has been a story of adaptation to unique human conditions, meaning all that we currently call “race” is a form of the miraculous human ability to adapt to the environmental conditions they find themselves in.

As a part of the restoration of all things — the gospel will be taken to every tribe, nations, kindred, tongue, etc. on the earth.
[…]
As a part of the gathering of the people of the Lord – these human races will be brought back into the one, single human family.
[…]
Race is purely conventional – and has no application of eternal significance.

because I think what we see as the diversity among the races still exists on the single bell-curve of being a single race of humans.

The only “pure-blood” race any of us can be said to be — is the race of human-being. Other than that, we are all mutts.

please Justin if you use this example tell the whole story, and that is that Joseph in tears and great humilty went back to this brother and explained that he had made a great mistake and removed his priesthood!

There’s also John Taylor’s discussions on priesthood which get to this same issue:

“You cannot take away any man’s Priesthood without transgression.” (John Taylor, Times and Seasons 6:922.)

I think there are other comments or posts somewhere on this blog that also speak of the fact that no man or group of men can remove priesthood from anyone else, once it is given. Based upon this principle, Joseph could not have removed Elijah’s priesthood.

I’ve noticed that in many of your comments you keep bringing up the lawful heirs scripture:

Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—for ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. (D&C 86:8-10)

This scripture (the part in bold type) came up once on this blog. See here.

I know with Justin that his whole point is that you cannot by lineage trace the black race back to Cain via the scriptures. However Bro. Brigham was quite clear and emphatic that the black race were decsendents of Cain, he even went so far as to give a physical description of the modern decsendents of Cain.

Which description he arrived at by revelation or by merely looking at his neighbor’s slave?

There is a prophecy found in D&C 85 that has been fulfilled in our time, verse 11 speaks of those of the high priesthood that will apostatize and also of their punishment which it refers to Ezra chap 2 verses 61&62. In Ezra it tells of some children that could not prove their lineage and were put from the priesthood. So the crime shall fit the punishment, by inference the crime being that by sanctioning the desegregation of the priesthood and its consequences of interracial marriage
…
Sorry about how my last entry ended, my computer skills are not the best. Any how Ezra chap.2 is tied in with the 85th sec. of the D&C speaking of a future prophecy which in my estimation came to past June of 1978. It is there in black and white and I recommend that you real all of Ezra as this theme really hits home in the 9th and chapters.

Here are those scriptures (D&C 85:11-12 and Ezra 2:61-62.)

And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High; therefore, it shall be done unto them as unto the children of the priest, as will be found recorded in the second chapter and sixty-first and second verses of Ezra. (D&C 85:11-12)

And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: these sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. (Ezra 2:61-62)

This prophecy could not have been fulfilled in 1978 because inheritances have not yet been given out or received.

Yes Justin I did say that anyone who thinks one group of humans should be denied rights and blessings from God based upon their linage is racist.
To clarify the woman investigator was not black and I didn’t write off the stake missionary nor her. I just did not want her to join the church believing that the church believed blacks are inferior and that is why they were not given the priesthood. Saying someone has race prejudice is not hating them nor writing them off. Yes I was mad at him and as I said in the comment I should not refer to him as a bastard. But racial profiling should never have been a policy of the church. And in my view that is all it ever was.

liv435 you are on the right track. We all should demand a revelation from God to be the reason for any policy implementations or policy changes.
And you are 100% correct there never was a revelation ending polygamy. Neither have I ever seen a revelation instituting a policy of denying any group of humans the priesthood. And you might be real surprised to find out that as far as women having the priesthood the historical facts point to that Joseph considered that they did have the priesthood. So again we seem to be dealing with more “traditions of the brethren”

But why speak of 150 year old events when the truth is being manifest before our very eyes. liv435 you are right no church holds priesthood individuals exercise the priesthood by faith on Christ. If your brother has that faith then his priesthood is effective. You should read the post by LDSA where he talks about what priesthood is. It is deep but very meaningful. LDSA you can tell her the name of the post and link to it. I am not good at that linking stuff.

So what is happening right today to challenge the idea that only men can hold the priesthood?

An endowed LDS woman I know is being threatened by her stake president and bishop that she will lose her temple recommend if she doesn’t start thinking differently. And what is her heretical thinking?
Well last November her young son was super sick and she was in despair what to do about it. She felt impressed to lay her hands on his head and give him a priesthood blessing. She did so and he recovered. It was so dramatic that she spoke of it in relief society meeting.
Just as Christ was told he was operating by the devil because he healed on the Sabbath which was against the traditions of the brethren, so this sister is being told to not only stop talking about it, but to stop believing in what she experienced. She has been told it was of the devil.

How nice that Joseph Smith taught plainly that the devil can not heal people. And that is one way to detect a false spirit. But conversely as Jesus taught if I do the works of God then believe that I am sent from him. So we should cast aside traditions of men and live by what the Spirit has confirmed to our souls.

I agree with the comments by Justin about the idea of classifying humans into different races. Genotype is all the genetic information of an individuals DNA. Phenotype are those traits which are physically manifest. So my father could be completely black and I could be very white and delightsome. It all depends upon what is manifest not upon what the DNA actually is.

Liv….I will not spare your ego as others have done. Your ego is your enemy. It is one or more of those spirits who were cast out with Lucifer and now, following his command, is assigned to cloud your mind with a veil of unbelief. But I will challenge you to find the desire to look deeper into this issue of the Priesthood as I thought the REAL you (not your ego) mentioned something very important about being a seeker of truth. Then seek it. Don’t say you have no desire to look deeper or to challenge your current racist way of thinking. Its ok to say your thinking is racist. I could say it. You could and have said it. That is fine. It does not have to remain that way…any more than your prior thinking on the ability of your brother in law to wield Pre-Stood power. Matter of fact this very wonderful learning experience you shared with us of feeling and confirming the Priesthood of God present in him…and the resultant shift in years of mistaken thought as you showed us….THIS is one and the same lesson. It is your decision whether or not you will allow it to continue to work upon your mind to teach you God’s truth in regards to the Pre-Stood Power.

I say Pre-Stood because it all goes back to the scripture that you quoted earlier. I believe it was Abraham 3

and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

So ruling privileges were extended to people who were in His presence as spirits…Then he says to Abraham something very key… “Thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.”…Liv, “Thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.” You were in the Father’s presence as spirit before you were born…you were seen to be good and were chosen to be a leader.

This is the most important principle we can learn in this life mission we are on. It will help you to understand The Priesthood better than any other information will. We must FIRST understand that we were all FOREORDAINED. Without that foreordination no ordination in this life would be valid but only pretend…fake-believe.

How do you know you were indeed chosen before this life? Well…because Jesus said:
“we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
And how do you know you kept your first estate? Well…because it is written:

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
So if you didn’t follow after the second at that day then you kept your first estate and you have the Pre-Stood Power. It is only a question of whether we will remember it and honor it and therefore let it flow through our SECOND estate.
We talk about Man-Hood, Womb-man-Hood, Father-Hood, Mother-Hood. It really all falls under Priest-Hood.

Ham, Shem and Japeth were all brothers so Im not sure there was a whole lot of racial difference between the three of them.The Arabs are Semitic…they came from Shem just like the Hebrews did. Hebrews brought Shem’s blood but very likely mixed with Hamitic blood to parts of Eastern Europe and via the Medditeranean to IBERria and up to Scotland and Ireland. Japeth is claimed by the Greeks as well as many of the ancient ethnic groups of India including the original Aryans. Ham did indeed father Black people…whether this has to do more with his wife that is mentioned I don’t know. His name is pronounced with a very hard ‘H’ more like a ‘KH” or hard ‘C’ or ‘CH’ as in CHEMistry which comes from the same root. He fathered children in KHEMet (Egypt) and had posterity in CAMbodia…and lets not forget the ancient name for the main tribe among the ancient Chinese people who were called the Sons of HAN.

But none of these guys had power to curse each other as to the priesthood. They might have cursed themselves as far as that goes…and this most definitely had its effects on their offspring. But this was no more permanent any of the effects of sin. Repentance was always available and Christ would cleanse anyone of their own sins and the sins of their fathers gladly. This is what Abraham tried to clearly show us with his account. But the second mystery author seems to have missed the point entirely with his emphasis of certain Fathers of others….and total ignorance of the wickedness of his own Fathers…failing to grasp the THE FATHERS of all had been given this power from the beginning.

Doctrine and Covenants tells us how one can CURSE Himself as far as Priesthood Privilege connected with the Powers of Heaven.

(1) 2nd son of Noah, father of Canaan and of various peoples which were inhabitants of southern lands
(2) in later usage, a collective name for Egyptians

When the word is used as just an adjective [instead of a proper noun] it describes such things as freshly baked bread [e.g., Joshua 9:12] — thus it’s thought to apply to the climate of Egypt, where the Hebrews supposed the descendents of Ham settled.

Elder Chantdown — your comments got me thinking about Joseph Campbell’s The Power of Myth — where he talked about needing to “update” our stories, and not continuing to just regurgitate the myths of the Hebrew people.

I was going to try and sum up his ideas and put them here in my own words — but I’ve just quoted [with emphasis] the parts of his book I thought about when I read your comments.

CAMPBELL:
It is particularly conspicuous in legends of the American Southwest, where the first people come out of the earth. They come forth out of the hole of emergence, and that becomes the sacred place, the world axial center, the temple. It is associated with a certain mountain.
[…]
And then comes an interesting thing, just as in the Old Testament — all we have heard is the story of this particular group […] But when they come out, other people are already there. It’s like the problem of where did Adam’s sons get their wives? There is the creation of these people, and the rest of the world is somehow there by another accident.

MOYERS:
This is the idea of the Chosen People.

CAMPBELL:Sure. Every people is a chosen people in its own mind. And it is rather amusing that their name for themselves usually means “Mankind” [as in “Adam”] – and they have odd names for the other people — like Funny Faces, or Twisted Noses.

In the biblical tradition, it is always the second son who is the winner, the good one. The second son is the newcomer — namely the Hebrews.

The older son, or the Canaanites, were living there before. Cain represents the “first-born”, agriculturally-based city position. And he’s cursed.
[…]
MOYERS:
There’s this ethical contradiction mentioned in your book, quoting Exodus: “Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife — except abroad. Then you should put all their males to the sword, and take their women as booty to yourself.” That’s right out of the Old Testament.

CAMPBELL:
Deuteronomy. Those are fierce passages.

MOYERS:
And what do they say to you about women?

CAMPBELL:They say more about Deuteronomy than about women.

The Hebrews were absolutely ruthless with respect to their neighbors. But this passage is an extreme statement of something that is inherent in most sociologically oriented mythologies. That is to say, love and compassion are reserved for the in-group, and aggression and abuse are projected outward on others. Compassion is to be reserved for members of your own group. The out-group is to be treated in a way the Hebrews described in Deuteronomy.

Now, today there is no out-group anymore on the planet.

And a modern religion needs to have such compassion that works for the whole of humanity. But then what happens to the aggression part? This is a problem that the world is going to have to face — because aggression is a natural instinct just as much as, and more immediate than, compassion, and it is always going to be there. It’s a biological fact.

Of course, in biblical times, when the Hebrews came in, they really wiped out the Goddess, the compassion. The term for the Canaanite goddess used in the Old Testament is “the Abomination.” Apparently, throughout the period represented in the Book of Kings, for example, there was a back and forth between the two cults. Many of the Hebrew kings were condemned in the Old Testament for having worshiped on the mountaintops. Those mountains were symbols of the Goddess. And there was a very strong accent against the Goddess in the Hebrew, which you do not find in the Indo-European mythologies. Here you have Zeus marrying the Goddess, and then the two play together. So it’s an extreme case that we have in the Bible, and our own Western subjugation of the female is a function of biblical thinking.

MOYERS:Because when you substitute the male for the female, you get a different psychology, a different cultural bias. And it’s permissible in your culture to do what your gods do, so you just —

CAMPBELL:
That’s exactly it. I would see three situations here:
(1) the early one of the Goddess, when the male is hardly a significant divinity
(2) the reverse, when the male takes over her role
(3) finally, then, the classical stage, where the two are in interaction — as they are, for example, in India.

MOYERS:
Where does that arise?

CAMPBELL:
It comes from the attitude of the Indo-Europeans, who did not completely devaluate the female principle.
[…]
MOYERS:
In this spiritual transformation that you’re talking about, won’t the change depend on those feminine characteristics such as nurturing, creativity, and collaboration instead of competition? Isn’t this at the heart of the feminine principle we’re discussing?

CAMPBELL:Well, the mother loves all her children — the stupid ones, the bright ones, the naughty ones, the good ones. It doesn’t matter what their particular character is. So the feminine represents, in a way, the inclusive love for all progeny.

The father is more disciplinarian. He’s associated much more with the social order and the social character. This is actually the way it works in societies. The mother gives birth to its nature, and the father gives birth to its social character – how the nature is to function.

So moving back toward nature will certainly bring forth the mother principle again.

How it will relate to the patriarchal principle I do not know, because the organization of the planet is going to be an enormous operation, and that’s the male’s function, so that you can’t predict what the new thing is going to be. But certainly nature is coming back.

MOYERS:
So when we say, “Save the earth,” we’re talking about saving ourselves.

CAMPBELL:
Yes. All this hope for something happening in society has to wait for something in the human psyche, a whole new way of experiencing a society. And the crucial question here, as I see it, is simply: With what society, what social group, do you identify yourself? Is it going to be with all the people of the planet, or is it going to be with your own particular in-group?

This is the question, essentially, that was in the minds of the founders of our nation when the people of the thirteen states began thinking of themselves as of one nation, yet without losing consideration for the special interests of each of the several states. Why can’t something of that kind take place for the whole world right now?

Black doesn’t mean bad or evil, it means weak. The Levitical symbol for sin is hair. White people can be very sinfull, so black means weak. Weak isn’t evil, it means they are like children, also weak in manythings. Kids first need to grow up and when they are old enough, they can take responsibilities. In the dark ages almost nobody had the priesthood, so how do you call that? Afrika/Africa means a free Ka = a free Soul. When people are ready, then they are able to get the priesthood, if they are rightenous. I received it when I was 25 and 26 years old. I was born in a bad family, but I didn’t like their way of life. I wasn’t prepared by my parents. I had to do it all by myself. Is it discrimination that I was born in a bad/criminal family? Maybe the Lord put me there for a reason? Now I know why sins are really wrong and I know the results of bad behavior. I know those thing better then the most members of the Church. Is it discrimination to punish a white person seven times more if they harm a black person or a child? This is what the old testament says. Leviticus is full of these Laws. So black people are more protected then white people, this must have a reason. The problem with a lot of churchmembers is that they don’t read enough the Bible. When I was a missionary at the age of 27 I met a lot of Elders with not so much knowledge of the Bible. I had read the Bible and I still do. I also read the Book of Mormon. There is no difference for me between those Books.
It is not the Mormon Church, but Jesus Christ own Church. Mormon is one of the 99 names of Allah is the Islam. Nephi means prophet in the islam and also in Hebrew. They write it a bit differently but the meanings are the same. Black in my country looks like bleek, it means that you are weak. The reasons can be many. It can be your own fold, somebody else his fold, an illness, an weakness, tiredness, Dna also can create weaknesses. If a person humble themselfs, God will make his/hers weaknesses strong.
Kids are weak, but will get stronger if they do the right things. Yesterday I saw a very beautifull black woman, is this discrimination? I also saw a very ugly white woman. Which one is cursed and which one is blessed? There are many different curses and blessings in the Bible, they are there for a reason. God decides where a person is born. Race, family, time, religion, condition, country ect. are his chooses. The word slave and servant are european words / names. A long time ago, the Baltic people were used as slaves / servants. The Arabs and North africans had white slaves. The Germans used Dutch slaves during the war. Black slaves were treated better then my people. They worked till they were dead. The same with the Jews in Egypt and in WW2. If I want a job in my country, it would be better for me if I was black or female. Is this discrimination? Some say yes other people say no. I can tell you more reasons, but I can’t prove them. I received it as personal inspiration. But God liberated the black race and now they can receive every blessing. God does’t hate blacks, he loves them greatly, because they are his children. All his kids need to grow up and call up (Kolob), then we will receive his knowledge (Oliblish = Ol IB LISH = Heavenly Fathers knowledge.
The Priesthood means to serve God = servant = Roman name for Slave.
So white people were God slaves / servants before the black people. So who is discriminated? God is love, so I love to serve him. Be his Slave or fail / fall.

I know Noah was very white to the point where at his birth it was thought that perhaps he was an illegitimate child spawned by one of the fallen ones who were those primarily targeted in the flood.If we could go back to those times I think many of us would be surprised to see that most people, including Enoch, would be described by us as Non-White and indeed many of them would be classified by modern terms as African.
Genetics indeed bring strengths and weaknesses but “blackness” is no more a divine mark or indicator of weakness or child-like nature or anything than “whiteness” the terms especially as they are used in modern society (which is definitely what we are speaking of when identifying the sin of hate and discrimination) are largely made-up terms that do not symbolize anything natural or divinely ordained…but rather speak to artificial segregation and the way we see ourselves and others fitting into a completely man-made societal structure that is obsessed with control and not very friendly toward the God of the universe.

SO…..I really am very unconcerned with this group or that groups view of pigmentation levels. It means nothing when we are talking of truth. God is placing anyone anywhere or marking us in any way. WE ARE.

Elder Chantdown,
Please don’t spare my ego! Lol. I’ll be the first to admit I’ve got monstrous pride. I’m also too light minded and am “given to much laughter.” I am aware of a lot of kinks in my character, but racist? I only want to know and understand God’s position on it. Because according to my understanding of the scriptures God himself could be classed as racist by someone, and has been by many anti-Christians. Is God racist? Of course not. Neither am I. When I said no more articles etc… would help I simply meant that at this point I have enough information from both sides to make a decision on what to believe, but my TRADITIONS which are planted deep would make a fair decision impossible so the only recourse I have is to ask God Himself for an answer. If I am still not understood I’m sorry but I don’t know how to make myself clearer-oh how I long for the days when we can again speak spirit to spirit and never misunderstand one another!-and just for the record, although I do have blonde hair and blue eyes, my great, great, great grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee Indian. Not only that but my great, great, great grandfather OWNED her! We still have the “receipt” in our family somewhere. I’ve never seen it but my dad has and it was very disturbing to him. But hey, you know, at least he married her. So I have some history in my family where there was a lot of prejudice shown, which is probably why I was never taught racism. And according to both definitions above I am not a racist.
And just for the record it was my brother, not brother in law. He has since left the church and thrown out the entire restoration. So, ya, I don’t think he has priesthood any more;)

I also love what Campbell says about those things….and I will only say one more thing in regards to those matters before continuing to address the situation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

In the same way that the secret combinations KNOW about the power innate within the female…and KNOW Her-Story of greatness in a time that pre-seeds His-Story and wherein Women could even be said to have been more advanced than men…just as little girls today still mature at a slightly faster rate then young boys till they eventually all even out….The Secret Combinations also KNOW the His-Story of Black People. They know that in many ways Patriarchal structure and “Civil”lization begins with a lot of the major founding roles of ruling class and original subjugators of society being played by Black Men.

If they are to have their “day in the sun” and resurrect the ancient plans of the secret combinations they need to keep women in general and black people from being aware of their history so these groups do not get any ideas.

Describing women as naturally weak and black people as naturally weak and generally less advanced or even if we say CHILD-LIKE is nothing more than a euphamistic way of agreeing with Satan current ploy to pit one group against another. It may sound sweet…but it is discrimination and actually based on a lie. Seeing the truth that Women in general and black people specifically held great power in earlier “forgotten” periods…and that there may also have been much abuse by many ancient African people and even the “docile woman” when at one time they were found just as erroneously misplaced on top of a corrupt civil-lie-zation as they are now….disinherited on the bottom of today’s Evil Empire.

So I will at least answer your many “Is this discrimination?” questions with a simple “YES” and you KNOW it is. When we accept philosophies of inequality to any degree, no matter where we place ourselves within those worldviews….we hope in vain that God will put a heavenly stamp of approval on our ideas…but no matter how benevolently we may paint them…they remain just that WORLD-views…not even our own in truth….and they will, along with the World, pass away.

Elder Chantdown,
You wrote “I meant to say God is NOT placing anyone anywhere or marking us in any way. WE ARE. We chose and are continuing to choose.”
Now this I do have a little knowledge on. Of course it’s only from my own experience. A lot of different things and emotions led to me receiving a vision. I was in the throne room, Heavenly Father beckoned me to Him and I knew it was the pre-existence. He was so big! Anyway I stood between His legs like a child, although I was an adult spirit. He went through my entire Earth life that HE had planned for me. Every detail starting with the family I’d be born into and why. There was an explanation for everything! After He had explained it completely He asked if I would accept HIS plans for me. I exclaimed, “Yes! You’re plans are full of glory and love!” there was a lot more detail but basically I can say that I may have consented but for myself I didn’t come up with my own life plan. Which has helped me tremendously when placed in very difficult circumstances in life.

Racism is not wearing sheets and burning crosses silly sister. I mean it can be broadcast at full volume in these ways…but it is most often kept politely on vibrate like a cell phone while you’re at the movies. Still a messages is sent a message is received and it is the same. You grew up in the United States of America. You were taught racism. As was I and everyone else. Racism is a system and it is racism itself that ensures that white people who believe that they are fundamentally different from and must preserve their slightly better class of “differentness” from the “others”…will have sometimes many “non white” “friends”. Please stop trying to prove that you are not racist. We have all touched on some pretty important topics here…and expounded on beautiful truths. And no one has called YOU racist. If you continue to defend racism instead of grasp Eternal Truth which is before us…then it is because you have sadly taken the ego for yourself. But the good thing is its a lie….and it will die eventually. So anyhow……..

Anybody actually serious about looking into the issue of “Priesthood in the Church”? Or are we gonna make this whole discussion about denying God the power to offer and grant HIS POWER to anyone who RECEIVES TRUTH at ANY MOMENT in ANY PART of the Universe?

Liv has no power to give nor take away Pres-Stood Power to or from her brother, her husband, black men, women etc. SHE only is given power to do that to or for herself. Ordination rituals are not the passing or granting of Priesthood Power but only can serve to help unlock it…as it was already placed there by God… on and into this plane.

Elder Chantdown,
Either you are hankering for a fight, or you seriously have a hard time understanding written language. I can tell by your posts that you battle horrendous pride as well. But whether or not you think you’re right does not justify you in labeling me or anyone else. I don’t appreciate being put in a box and labeled, either as a racist or a “silly girl” Being a jerk to people and accusing them is wrong. I think you need to examine yourself brother. As for me I don’t like contention, as it says in the BoM, contention is of the devil. So I’m afraid you will have to find someone else to contend with as I am bowing out of this one. I do wish you the best of luck on dealing with your pride. I know it’s a hard battle.

Yeah pride can be a bit-challenging. As you pointed out I don’t really understand written language all that well either. Thanks for bowing out.

Whether the story of Walker Lewis, Elijah Abel, Joseph T. Ball or any other of the early black saints, whether male of female, there are many interesting events that help to bring the truth to light. When you look into it you see that most of these priesthood ordinations were performed by members of the Joseph Smith family interestingly enough. There is not really the same type of small identifiable group when it comes to the opposition to black people receiving priesthood ordinations…the anti black sentiment was pretty widely accepted. There are a few who are the most vocal however… William L. Appleby, Brigham Young and Zebedee Coltrin.

These are all very revealing stories and worthwhile to study but one of my personal favorites is when Zebedee Coltrin tries to convince “the brethren” to undo the ordination of Elijah Abel to the office of a Seventy by telling them that Joseph Smith himself had instituted a ban on black males holding the priesthood in 1834. But when President Joseph F. Smith asks if he is sure about it to which Coltrin replies that he is…it is proven to be fabricated when President Smith produces documentation showing that Zebedee himself ordained Elijah in 1836.

One other story in particular which is very entertaining and telling is the story of an early member of the church who was known as Black Pete. He was amassing a number of wives at a rate on par with Brigham Young himself…and most of the wives were white women. HAHA!

The Church had nothing to do with the Priesthoodban, but Jesus Christ himself, it’s his Church. Why is it so difficult to understand? The Priesthood means to serve. A servant is a slave, these words are European and come from the Baltic people, they used them as slaves long time ago. So who are discriminated? The white males or the black males? If you want to live in an celestial world, then you must humble yourself and be a servant to your God and all the other people living there. It’s so easy.
You need to become a slave voluntairly, by your own free will and you need love to do those things. To be able to do those things, you need to be prepared in the pre-excistance and also on this Earth. Who is prepared?
It took almost 6000 years to prepare the black race. Why? Asked your Heavenly Father and he will tell you by his Holy Spirit. Read The Book of Jarom vs 4. I can tell you one thing: Young children don’t have the priesthood for many good reasons. If you don’t want to agree with these things, you should blame God and J.C. The Church is just a building and the leaders are God/Jesus servants. Pray with an open mind and you will receive information far above the Human intelligence. If you have received it, most likely you will believe, but when you tell somebody else, mostlikely they won’t believe you. It will be personal inspiration, this will be a blessing and a curse. It is difficult to tell these thing to everybody because many of them won’t be ready for this kind of higher inspiration/information. This is why higher Churchleaders aren’t telling everything. The hearts of many people are to dark, we need to led God’s light in our heart, so the good seeds can grow. God is love and Jesus liberated the Black Race.

It is interesting that the same spirit that sought to restrict blacks from holding the priesthood, also sought to restrict them from all the ordinances for the living found in the temple, as well as restricting them from contracting plural marriage (for that was only available for whites who obained their temple ordinances.) So, this wasn’t just a priesthood restriction. It created a separate marriage form for whites and blacks and ordained monogamy as the only valid form of marriage for blacks. Now, what did Brigham Young say about monogamic marriage?

God has told many of us personally that it was and is nothing more than racism, sexism and all manner of other isms and schisms in the Church that is responsible for the hierarchy that spiritually, mentally and physically oppresses the families of the earth.

So I don’t think anyone needs to listen to you telling us that, “It’s so easy. You need to become a slave voluntairly” It’s so easy. You need to learn english maybe. Slavery is by definition not voluntary. And if you think that Jesus uses involuntary work, captivity and destruction of families to supposedly “liberate” people….then you are obviously very confused.

Oh, I know! You are simply trying to explain to our darkened minds some “kind of higher inspiration/information.” I suppose I should thank you for enlightening us and answering the questions that may linger in so many people’s minds. Only one problem…many of us are servants of the Most High. We are about building Zion and not making excuses for “Church leaders”.

Although you do offer a very interesting theory about their silence when you say “This is why higher Church leaders aren’t telling everything.” Really Riescist? I thought there were other reasons for them not telling every thing.

April 5, 1977 The Salt Lake Tribune reported: “Mormon dissident Douglas A. Wallace charged Monday that a Salt Lake City police officer, shot early Sunday was keeping surveillance on him in a nearby residence. “Acting Police Chief Edgar A. Bryan Jr. denied it. “He said his men were not keeping surveillance on Mr. Wallace, a excommunicated member of the Church…but he would not say what the stakeout’s purpose was. “Officer David W. Olson remained in critical condition Monday at St. Mark’s Hospital, where personnel said he suffered a severed spinal cord from a single shot in the neck. The policeman was shot accidentally by his partner,… Wallace was staying at the home of a friend, Dr. John W. Fitzgerald, 2177 Carriage Lane. (4600 South). “He was in Salt Lake City to try to make an appearance at the LDS World Conference last weekend. Attorneys for the church, however, obtained a temporary restraining order…which prevented the dissident from visiting Temple Square. “‘I have not committed any crime, and I don’t intend to commit any crime. I have been raised in the Mormon faith and I am a man of peace…This is not Russia; this is not Nazi Germany; there is no reason why I should be under surveillance of the police,’ Mr. Wallace said.”

6 April 1977 Salt Lake Tribune related: “Ex-Mormon Douglas Wallace, who claims the wounding of an undercover police officer was done while police held surveillance on him, Tuesday afternoon said he will subpoena various high ranking police and sheriff’s deputies to establish the fact…. “Mr. Wallace said also, ‘It is clear from the evidence that we have uncovered that I was under surveillance. The police department’s denial of that simply compounds the wrong. Is this going to be Salt Lake’s sequel to the Watergate scandal?'”

Salt Lake Tribune, April 8, 1977: “With Mr. Wallace and his attorney pressing them hard, the police were finally forced to admit the truth about the matter: “Salt Lake City police officers admitted Thursday that the accidental wounding of an undercover officer occurred during surveillance of Mormon dissident Douglas A. Wallace…. “Reports released Thursday by both the county sheriff’s office and the county attorney show that six officers were on stakeout around the John W. Fitzgerald home…where Mr. Wallace was staying.”

18 Jan 1978 Letter to Editor of the Salt Lake Tribune from David Olson (SLC Police officer who was accidentally shot and paralyzed while putting Douglas Wallace under direction of Church leaders.)
“I would also like to thank Spencer W. Kimball for his incorrect press release concerning the police involvement combined with the LDS church’s efforts to restrict Douglas A. Wallace from the temple grounds, specifically the Tabernacle, on April 3, 1977. “His denial of these actions is wrong. Any man who can take such actions and still call himself a prophet deserves more than I to be confined to this wheelchair.”

Detective David W. Olson joined the police department in October 1971 and was a combat veteran of the Vietnam war. Olson had served in the Patrol, K-9, and Special Investigations Division. He was known to his close friends as “Hagar”.

In the early morning hours of April 3, 1977, Olsen, while in the performance of his duties was accidentally wounded. As a result of his injuries, he was unable to return to active duty and died on March 22, 1980. (Suicide)?

So what were Wallace’s actions that brought this unfortunate reaction from Church & State? Under direction from the Holy Spirit, this man baptized and ordained another man to the priesthood.This was in 1976 and the other man was black.

HIs name was Larry Lester. All I know is that the Saltican City declared his ordination null and void. But if he was in any way considered a threat and is still alive you can bet that he is monitored by the Church. This is no small issue. Everyone here who claims to believe in the truths contained in the restoration movement, the modern scripture within the Book of Mormon, D&C etc, the message of liberty from Christ as delivered through Joseph Smith in short anyone who believes that any of this has anything to do with the literal establishment of Zion needs to take this seriously and understand that three of the key reasons for Joseph’s martyrdom were his preaching of SELF GOVERNANCE, and specifically shaking things up in terms of advocating for PERSONAL EMPOWERMENT of the FEMALE GENDER and the BLACK RACE.

Those who killed Christ had to continue killing and perverting till they had rendered Christianity harmless to their Evil Empire…from there they CONvert it into a tool in the hands of the Devil. THE SAME THING has happened with the Restoration Movement. Priesthood Power, the controlling of its spreading or activation and diverting and diluting it till it is harmless, and useless against them makes the Church and “Priesthood Offices” most effective tools in the hands of the Devil today. What are we doing about this? Apart from talking…

Oh while checking into it I found that Larry Lester moved to the Hawaiian Islands and never went to church…so I’d say he made the right move. LDSA you really should do a variation on your post entitled “Zion Will Not Be Established By Unrelated Persons” called “Zion Will Not Be Established By Churchgoers” Seriously.

Trace the history of the world from [the cursing of Ham/Canaan] down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy [about servanthood].

What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be UNTIL it is affected by as great power as caused it to come

There is sufficient “loop-hole” space for the ban to be overturned, given what Joseph is quoted as having said.

Now — I don’t care to make a case with a quote like that [one way or the other]. My point is that the danger of non-canonical sources of doctrine is that it becomes too easy to “prophet-bash” each other to death.

Brandnu/Anonymous can use that quote from Joseph to “show” that he believed in the slavery of black Africans and therefore also the withholding of temple rites from them. I can use that quote to show that he may have held that opinion, but that he was open to the possibility of a revelation on the matter changing his mind.

That’s the danger in leaving the word of God and staking out our “hills to die on” based on the opinions of men [even noble and respectful men and women like some church leaders].

Brigham can say:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

and then I can read Joseph’s opinion that:

A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.

and I’d struggle much less if I had to justify the latter quote with the word of God — than if I was going to endeavor to justify the former.

Elder Chantdown — I enjoyed this (s)word from you:

Everyone here who claims to believe in the truths contained in the restoration movement, the modern scripture within the Book of Mormon, D&C etc, the message of liberty from Christ as delivered through Joseph Smith in short anyone who believes that any of this has anything to do with the literal establishment of Zion needs to take this seriously and understand that three of the key reasons for Joseph’s martyrdom were:

(1) his preaching of SELF GOVERNANCE,
(2) and specifically shaking things up in terms of advocating for PERSONAL EMPOWERMENT of the FEMALE GENDER
(3) and the BLACK RACE.

Ries — I’m sure you’re directing your question to Chantdown — however, it would be more productive if you’d follow that obviously rhetorical question up with something more substantive that either he or someone else could discuss with you.

There is [admittedly] the story of him sending the Gentile woman away because she wasn’t of the proper race. But then he ends up healing her because of her faith in him.

The parable of the good Samaritan was meant as a direct criticism of racists Jews who’d walk on by an injured man [perhaps thinking that’s what he got for hanging around a gang of thieves in the first place]. The very idea of a “good Samaritan” was [for his audience] a radical egalitarian concept that would have probably been laughed-off by most because of who the Samaritans were as a racial group.

The modern equivalent would have been telling a group of segregation-Southerners in the 1960’s about a certain man who fell among thieves and was robbed, beaten, and left half dead — only to be picked-up by some old black man and nursed back to health. The parable was meant to be racially-controversial.

And then, when the church of Christ began to actually racially [creating a Jew-Gentile racial dichotomy] — was it not Jesus Christ who acted through revelation to tell Peter:

but the voice spoke again
the second time

what god has made clean
call thou not

unclean

[…]
and Peter said unto them

ye know how that it is an unlawful thing
for a man that is a Jew
to keep company
or come unto
one of another nation
but god hath showed me
that I should not call any man
common or unclean

If “there is neither Jew, nor Greek“, then there’s neither European, nor African. If you could no longer cut Gentiles out of the promises made to the Jews — then how could you justify cutting black Africans out?

Luke 10:18, read the Hebrew Bible, read his name in this language Not everybody on this earth is human. Our DNA has been poluted by him. Our spirits has been poluted by him. Read second nephi 9:21 Only Adams posterity. It takes time to cure DNA, the Black race has been poluted the most. The truth is must greater then people know. Many years ago when I was a child, me and my sister saw a spaceship in the sky. About ten years ago I saw a man that I was trying to help change in someting not human. I became a member of The Church, because I asked the Lord himself that I wanted to find his true Church. I searched for the truth for many years. I’m a member of the Church for 21 years, last year I started all over again. I found out that the Church is even more true then I expected. If the Church was fake, I would have left the Church, I said this to my Heavenly Father. During my second search, many things were reveiled to me, I didn’t expect this to happen. Now I know for sure and even more. Jesus Christ can cure our DNA and our spirits. Satan is on the earth and wants to take over this earth. I can tell you must more, but for this moment it is enough. Read The book of Jarom vs 4, you will receive if you are close enough to the Lord, just keep an open mind and let God decide what is really good or bad / evil. Please don’t call me a racist, my best friend is colored and because of him I became a Saint. He is a muslim, but he is still my best friend.
Give truth a change, even if you don’t like it in the beginning.

I was beholding the adversary
as lightning from the heaven
having fallen

Your implication from this appears to be that the adversary impregnated women after falling to the earth from the sky?

I’ve heard some people say that Eve was actually impregnated by Satan when she “partook of the fruit” that was so “delicious and desirable” — *wink*, *wink*. And then that Cain was Satan baby and Abel/Seth were Adam’s.

Is that what you believe — or do you believe in the nephilim in the days of Enoch/Noah? Or perhaps some combination of both?

2 Nephi 9:21

and he cometh into the world
that he may save all men
if they will hearken unto his voice
for behold
he suffereth the pains of all men
yea
the pains of every living creature
both men
women
and children
who belong to the family of Adam

Do you think “every living creature” applies only to those “who belong to the family of Adam” — so that if you can remove black Africans from the family of Adam [by ascribing Satan as their genetic father], you could then say that Jesus did not suffer their pains? Instead of saying that it includes every creature with life.

And then — since as the OP points out — Cain’s descendants were Arabians, and the Egyptians [who preserved the blood of the Canaanites in the land] are Arabians — wouldn’t Satan’s children [if there is such a thing] then be Arabians?

Didn’t Jesus say, of Judeans:

ye are of your father
the devil
and the lusts of your father
ye will do
he was a murderer from the beginning
and bode not in the truth
because there is no truth in him

when he speaketh a lie
he speaketh of his own
for he is a liar
and the father of it
and because I tell you the truth
ye believe me not

so if we curse any race — why are these biblical theories always cursing black Africans?

And here’s, Jarom 1:4

and there are many among us
who have many revelations
for they are not all stiffnecked
and as many as are not stiffnecked
and have faith
have communion with the Holy Spirit
which maketh manifest unto the children of men
according to their faith

Preparing a race isn’t cutting them out, God knows why it was done in this manner. I know why, but this is personal inspiration. Blackness is not a curse, but protection against the Serpent race, for the same reason our skin is protected by bad light. Even a white person gets darker in a sunny environment. Before we came to this earth, everybody was Light, not white or black, red or yellow, not green or blue (like the fallen Hindu angels). If you get confused, send this spirit away (D&C 50:29-35).
It really works, I found this out yesterday. Is it weird that God gives me this kind of inspiration or is it weird that a lot of members don’t get this kind of personal inspiration/visions? Read Jarom vs 4 and find out yourself. It took me 21 years, but now I know why. Higher truths are revealed by the Holy Spirit, the general truths by the Prophet. All truths revealed in the past by all of the Prophets can be revealed to every member of the Church. Joseph Smith has said this. To male and female and even kids.
Read Joel 2:28-29 (30-32 are also very interesting). Ask and you will receive. Thinking that you are righteous isn’t enough, I have thought this for 21 years, but now I know that I have to believe more, repent more, love more, open my heart more, study more and I have to stay closer to the Lord Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit, because Our Father in Heaven expect more from all of us. There is only one problem when you start doing these things, mostlikely many people won’t believe you, but you will know it is true and from God and his only begotten Son.

It’s not a curse, it’s a blessing. Read Luke 10:18 in Hebrew and you will understand. English isn’t Hebrew. Satan isn’t the father of any Human, but he has changed/sickened our DNA. That’s why God cursed the snake. Satan used reptiles to create serpentbodies which look like humans or he let them look like humans. Fallen angels also want to have a body. Satan was one of the highest leaders/angels that created this earth. Jesus was the highest. He knows alot about creation and DNA. God gave him almost all his power and he can’t take it away just like that. His word is eternal and because he gave everybody free agency he has to fight him his way, because of this free agency, which is also eternal. Have you seen what is going on with the sun? Joel 2:30-32 is already beginnen! On april 6th 2012, what is Jesus Christ birthday 2012 years ago (he became 12 years old and a man by hebrew law 2000 years ago), there were signs and other weird things. In 2033 the sun will be darkened for three day and this Earth will go through a portal in our sun and satan can stay in our solarsystem in darkness(outer darkness). We will go the our brethren from the City of Henoch, they are in a terrestial solarsystem and we will meet them and they will meet us. Our solarsystem is different. It’s telestial at this moment. Here the time is different. 1 day = 1000 years and there 1 day = 600 days.
Elder Nelson has told this will happen in 2033 and I’m the only one so far as I know, that found a date in MLS (the church software) that says to change the times of the churchmeetings in 21th of august 2033. I’m the wardclerg in my hometown. Nobody could tell me why this was hidden in the programm. I can’t enter the systemprogramm anymore, but I showed it to three members of my Ward, they are my witnesses. Sorry that I believe, but I have seen to many things, I can’t deny it anymore. I had vision and dreams before I was a member of the Church and I still do. Maybe this has a reason, but I still have to find out why. I know some things, but I’m not sure enough. When I know more and when I’m alowed to tell, then I will share it with other people. Another thing, the first woman left Adam and was called lillith, satans name in Hebrew is Hellil. The name of the evil second father is Ba and the name of the evil second mother is Ma.
Eve was pure and made out of Adam’s rib, because the first woman left him. The black people belong to Jesus Christ and all the other races on earth. The Humans that are not real Humans belong to satan. They will have no resurrection, like the Bible says. The Nephilim and the Serpents belong to this group. My patriarcal blessing says I can recognize them. I told some other people this, but they didn’t believe me. I asked God if I was mistaken and I wasn’t. Later on that day I saw something on my TV. I saw it again. I pauzed my television and played it back click by click. It was really true. I showed it to my daughters and they saw a certain person change in something not human also. They are my two witnesses. They are 10 and 14 years old, but I had to show it to somebody. I tried to record the evil change, but it wasn’t possible, because I had pauzed it and recording does’t work when it has been pauzed. They are already on Earth again and they are taken over Goverments and Royal Houses and other important offices. Pray about it with an open heart and mind and God will tell you when you are ready. There are a lot of things that I don’t know yet and some thing I know only partially, but I want to know it all. Satan tried to destroy me and our families, but I’m fighting back. At this moment a protecting spirit is coming over me, I haven’t felt this before. God is with me and I love him and not satan the sick creature. 22 years ago, during the time of my baptism, I layed meself down on my bed and closed my eyes. A person apeared to me and asked me to follow him, I said I didn’t want to follow him and said to him that he should leave me alone. He left me but said to me that he will harm me and won’t leave me alone. Now I won’t leave him alone. He has harmed me and our families enough. I don’t know why I’m telling all these things, but they are true, believe it or not. I love my savior Jesus Christ and my brothers and sisters on this earth. I don’t need any honer, money or whatever. I want to become the meaning of my last name. Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ I honer and not myself. He is the great redeemer, made out of pure love and intelligence, I’m not but through him I can become free= a free Ka=Afrika= a free soul in body and spirit. Is this a blessing or not?!

I posted the quote from Luke 10:18 from the literal translation — but since you brought it back up — not only does no one here [that I know of] speak Hebrew [which is why I posted an English translation], but Luke wasn’t written in Hebrew. Are you suggesting I find a copy of the Greek text of Luke translated into Hebrew? Or the English text translated into Hebrew? Or do you know of an original Hebrew text of Luke?

You have a theory that may keep my interest, Ries=Christian Richard Hail (english version) or Rise — and that’s:

Even a white person gets darker in a sunny environment.

Are you suggesting that the influence of Satan is the oxidative stress of UV radiation?

Earth would not have been exposed to solar radiation while it was in the plasma cocoon when in polar configuration with Saturn. Perhaps the plasma lightning-bolt from Satan [Luke 10:18] disrupted the protective encapsulation humans previously enjoyed — and exposed life to the brunt of unshielded, degradative solar radiation.

Though UV radiation can do beneficial biological transformations [like covert cholesterol in the skin into vitamin D3, and allow photosystems in plants to take electrons from H2O to make energy with] — it will also damage/age cells by the production of reactive O2 species and increase the likelihood of cells going cancerous.

Thus — the human genetic code responded by beginning to code for greater amounts of melanin in the dermal tissue — to serve as a protection against this new UV stress.

Ries=Christian Richard Hail (english version) or Rise — is that what you were saying, or no?

The Israelites were cursed, because they didn’t listen to Jehova in the proper way. They were cursed and didn’t get the higher Priesthood. They only received the lower Priesthood. Only some Highpriest and Prophets had the Higher Priesthood of Melchezidek. Maybe they should start complaining as well. They were also cursed in the desert, they were not alowed to enter the promised land. It took 40 years before that happened and many of the old people died in the desert. Their kids were alowed to enter the promised land. God cursed the people that lived there because they were evil. They were living wrongly, there sexual behavior was against his commandments and they sacrifised their kids. The Israelites had to go to Kanaan and they had to kill many of the people overthere. A big part of the people were poluted with the blood of the Giants. That’s why they had to kill man, woman and even their kids. They had partly the blood of fallen Angels and these creatures were send to that area to polute the race, because they knew that the Savior will be born in this country. That’s why Jehova sent the Israelites to that area. The last place where the poluted people lived was Ghaza and the Israelites didn’t kill them all. Those poeple are not African Blacks, but mixed people with Nephilim DNA. Nephilim DNA also came from Heavenly Father, but there genes are not Divine anymore, because they left the present of God and they are living in an evil way and place. Without the Tree of Life all DNA can become damaged and poluted. Only a righteous life helps to cure our DNA if we are not in the present of the Tree or in Gods present. People curse themself and their kids if they live badly. I know that, because my parents didn’t live a pure life. They gave me many genetic defects. I need to stay close to the Lord to become healthy again. Partly this is already happening. A few years ago a received a blessing and I was told that everything would be allright in the future. So I’m cursed because of my parents, maybe I should start complaining as well. Why didn’t I receive the Priesthood when I was 12 years old? Was I discriminated or needed I more preparation because I’m the offspring of bad parents? Black and white people shouldn’t complain so much. Be gratefull for what you get. Many people on this Earth are cursed in many ways and also blessed in many ways. The tribe of Dan that went to Scandinavia as a lost tribe was cursed and they don’t belong to the tribes of Israel anymore, because of sexual transgressions. They are cursed and maybe they should start to complain. There is only one solution and that is repentance. The Priesthood is now available for everybody, but Jews and Muslims are still a problem. They need to find out what their true God is. Without this they can’t receive the Priesthood. After the year 2020 the Jews will get their own Temple and they will find out the truth, but it will become a difficult time for them and the world, because of the evil worldleaders. They will start armageddon and Jesus will fight back and will conquer all evil. Don’t fight against the Churchleaders, they didn’t make the decisions, Jesus Christ himself did. He knows everything. Joseph Smith was and is a great Prophet, but even he wasn’t alowed to tell everything. Lehi and Nephi didn’t tell everything, because it wasn’t alowed or the right time to tell. Read 1 nephi 1:16 + 8:29 + 14:28
Live righteously and our flesh and spirit will be healed.
God bless you.

Black and white people shouldn’t complain so much. Be gratefull for what you get.

This ain’t bad advice — speaking generally.

Though I don’t know that it necessarily applies if black families were forbidden from temple ordinances and plural marriages for non-justified reasons.

And I think to get at whether the race-based policy of forbidding temple ordinances to black families was ordained of God or not — one would need to tackle such questions as:

Ries,

Since it’s kinda the point of this whole post:

The Church had nothing to do with the Priesthoodban, but Jesus Christ himself, it’s his Church.

I’ll ask — on what are you basing this assertion of yours? Is there some scripture, some anecdote, some written statement by an apostle or other church minister, or what?

Where did “Jesus Christ himself” institute a ban on black men holding the priesthood and black families attending the temple?

and

Do you think “every living creature” [in 2 Nephi 9:21] applies only to those “who belong to the family of Adam” — so that if you can remove black Africans from the family of Adam [by ascribing Satan as their genetic father], you could then say that Jesus did not suffer their pains? Instead of saying that it includes every creature with life.

And then — since as the OP points out — Cain’s descendants were Arabians, and the Egyptians [who preserved the blood of the Canaanites in the land] are Arabians — wouldn’t Satan’s children [if there is such a thing] then be Arabians?

Didn’t Jesus say, of Judeans:

ye are of your father
the devil
and the lusts of your father
ye will do

The Egyptians were alowed to enter the Temple after one generation, other people had to wait longer. This is a levitical law. Arabs are semites, blacks are Chamites. They were all in the Arc and were preserved by God. The children of satan are the people that follows him and his evil creatures like the Nephilim and the Serpents. If we are evil and won’t repent, then we will become like them. Jesus died for the people that followed him in the pre-existance. All races on this Earth did, but not the people that followed satan in the pre-existance. The people that will start following satan on this Earth won’t receive forgiveness totally. May they will end up in a terrestial world, but when they completely evil, outerdarkness will be their place. It doesn’t matter if you are black or white, just choose the God that you want to follow, or choose your own path, all decisions will end up somewhere.
My decision is to choose Jesus Christ and to follow his path the best way I can. I’m not perfect, but I will do my best and God does the rest.

The Egyptians were alowed to enter the Temple after one generation, other people had to wait longer. This is a levitical law. Arabs are semites, blacks are Chamites.

So what does the record of Abraham mean when it says:

now this king of egypt
was a descendant from the loins of Ham
and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birthfrom this descent sprang all the Egyptians
and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land

the land of egypt being first discovered by a woman
who was the daughter of Ham
and the daughter of Egyptus
which in the Chaldean language signifies egypt
which signifies that which is forbidden
when this woman discovered the land
it was under water
who afterward settled her sons in it
and thus
from Ham
sprang that race
which preserved the curse in the land

now the first government of egypt was established by Pharaoh
the eldest son of Egyptus
the daughter of Ham
and it was after the manner of the government of Ham
which was patriarchal

If a person follows satan, then God is not allowed to protect that person anymore, this would be against the law of free will. If you do good or bad, it will have a result. Only repentance will undo this law, but you need a Savior, that is willing to pay the price that is needed because of the trangressions of these laws. Our DNA is sick and need to be cured, our spirit is also sick and need to be cured. Black isn’t bad. Coal is very black and gives great fires and BBQ’s. Diamond is the same matter, but much stronger and usefull in more ways. It still can be burned, but that would be very expensive. Black coals give light for a short while, precious stones can receive light / energy for ever. We need to become diamonds, hardened by extreem presure. Many people took special lessons in the pre-existence, but not everybody. The preparation and hardening started there. I prepared myself before I came to this Earth. I know this and I was told that this had happened. We already had our free will and the result was that we were all very different, not by race but by mentality / caracter. The most evil people on this earth are white, but very intelligent, like lucifer. Black doesn’t mean evil. We become evil by following evil. If you follow the wrong doings of your parents, race, culture, religion, friends, gangs and even satan, then you are cursed. If I had followed my parent, I would have been cursed into the 3rd and 4th generation. My children wouldn’t have been born in the covenant and the spirits of my children would have been less righteous. I broke the curse and I have great kids, not perfect but better then many other kids. Nobody in my family is a member of the Church and their kids live without the gospel. Sex, drugs, alcohol, crimes ect. have a bad effect on them. They are interested in money and pleasure and not in their creator. They are darkened inside and I hope that one day many will accept the true gospel. My wife is born in the Church, but she is the only active member at this moment. If they won’t repent, they will not enter the highest Heaven. If my family will repent, then they will enter. My wife’s family is more righteous in many ways, but not interested anymore and inactive. They became weak and it will take time to strengthen them, if they let us. I believe that a lot of black people will accept the gospel, maybe many of them were weak, but pure. I see a lot of powerfull religious people, but they are not pure, and many of them will never accept the true gospel. Many of those people are white, but not right. So who is blessed and who is cursed? The weak, but pure or the strong but impure? God is pure love and he knows what he is doing! Young kids don’t need to be baptised, they are not ready but pure. They first need to learn more and when they are old enough and prepared enough, then they can be baptised. This is not a curse but a blessing. A curse has also the meaning of the resulting adversity. So the result of the adversity can be possitive or negative. A curse can become positive if we repent and follow Jesus Christ. When I became sick, I had to go to a fitnessschool. I fought back and my strength and condition is much better then ever before. My curse became a blessing. I had to learn to fight and I wanted to fight. So for the righteous black people the curse will become a blessing and for the unrighteous white people their blessings will become a curse. It’s so simple, this is God’s wisdom and love for all people. Do you know that Kain has been cursed with a strange curse, he can’t die and will stay miserable for ever. Maybe this is the true curse of him and not the dark skincolor? A dark skin protects against to much good light and against harmfull light. Is this a curse or a blessing? Blessed is the person that makes good choices.

I was searching yesterday for some information on the Kingston polygamy family and I stumbled across a web site which was dedicated to talking to Mormon Fundamentalists about issues they may have with the LDS Church. Anyway, as I looked around that web site, I saw a page dedicated to answering the concerns of fundies about the lifting of the priesthood ban. The page had some interesting information on it, some of which I had never heard of. For example, the page states the following:

Since priesthood is required for any man to attend the ordinances of the temple, it is significant that the Prophet taught that people of “every color” would flock to Nauvoo, Illinois to worship in the temple being constructed there. Joseph stated:

If the work rolls forth with the same rapidity it has heretofore done, we may soon expect to see flocking to this place, people from every land and from every nation; the polished European, the degraded Hottentot, and the shivering Laplander; persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the Lord of Hosts in His holy temple and offer up their orisons in His sanctuary. (HC 4:213.)

I grew up with people around me that shared that believe and statements of the African people, but since young I always felt deep inside of me that it wasn’t right. I prayed about it, and got a stronger feeling that it was just wrong, that way of thinking. Sorry, no angel came down, and no marvelous revelation of it.
Often, I like to bring up this Topic with Members of the Church to find out their stance on it, there are many, who just say the same lines like some posters above and bring the same Quotes from B.Young but i am not satisfied with that. There were of course some who said that the Priesthood ban was rubbish but they are few in numbers.
And for the people who were born in the 80′ s up its hard to deal with that past of our church. I have many black friends, and sincerely, how can I tell them about our churches past, that I as Member don’t even KNOW all the facts of that time? I cannot.
Sadly, that believe of the Priesthood Ban is teached very often, a friend of mine who was never a big believer of that Ban, returned from Mission with that way of thinking. Simply because they had a class about it in the MTC. But ask her of the Scriptures, she’s lost…

But really the ban doesn’t make sense to me, How about Joseph of Egypt’s descendants? They were of mixed parentage and as far as it goes Manasse and Ephraim didn’t took Hebrew wives… so the Ban would have been on their lines too.
I also find it quite weird, that the Prophet asked God about this matter, when the Church started to grow in Brazil and people finding out that most People had an Black ancestor in their lines.
So nobody asked God about it before? Was it just taken as doctrine until Spencer W. Kimball’s time, as no one wanted to go against B. Young word before that?

I find it funny how some people do make some racist comments…
not wanting “their Kids getting mixed with blacks” and then stating, they do nothing wrong… like that Lady with the Lindsay Lohan Pic. Well, you better check and make some DNA tests with whoever goes too near to your kids!
oh and btw, there were some mixed people who passed of as white! WHITE! OMG! Can you believe it? Hey, you better don’t let anyone be your Kids spouse.

And the RIES person had me wondering if there was ever a comment from the church of that whole Nephilim matter. Searching the Net, I found many interesting links about the Fallen Ones but is there any Quote or Thoughts from the Church Side?

“Nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand, and watch over them with tenderness. When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what power it has over my mind, while the opposite course has a tendency to harrow up all the harsh feelings and depress the human mind.”
History of the Church, 5:23–24.

I would like to concur with the prophet on this and thank everyone who has been patient with me in my effort to understand this topic.

I have come to realize that Truly the most important thing we need to learn is to love one another. The more I, myself, am judged and condemned the more I find myself not wanting to return it to others.

I never thought of myself as someone who trusted in the “arm
of flesh.” Boy was I wrong! Any idea or belief that you adopt as your own strictly because someone you respect or revere who said it is dangerous. From now on I will try to not only compare my beliefs with scripture but more importantly I will seek confirmation from the Lord. I encourage everyone to rebuke others only when moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so. Otherwise just be kind. Contention never serves a good purpose. Peoples souls are at stake and you may turn people away from seeking deeper if you treat them condescendingly.

liv435
is there a word that makes racist comments neutral, or even not racist at all? I don’t know what you are expecting…
My friend who’s Black often said “He wouldn’t mix with white people”, even thought I somehow can understand where he came from (slavery in the past of his family, like many others), doesn’t it make less racist at all. He too did denied it.

Your comments made me feel sad even mournful, and I can’t say I “love” you less because of it. Sure, my further statement wasn’t put smartly, but when it comes down to it, that’s what you would have to do. Just like I told my friend, if he didn’t want to mix in with Whites, he would have to go through the whole process of tracking his ancestors and his futures spouse.

Take that guy from Norway, Anders Breivik. He killed 69 young people of a left winged Party, well you read it up. But that kind of mindset is very very dangerous. A lot of people are closet Racists, and won’t admit it. Same in Germany, for about 10 years there have been murders on Turkish people, lately they found out it was the work of some Neo Nazi group who lived a normal life even to the point of working in the Police, and infiltrating some political level…
Both storys are sad, but even sadder is how Christians react, with Quotes like “Burn in Hell”, “Son of Satan” etc, now that are some really harsh words I wouldn’t want to deal with. I don’t think anyone here condemned you in such a way… did anyone?
I do wonder how God will judge, but who am I to that?

btw, i dunno who that is, that woman on your Pic, i don’t follow much celebrities. I thought it was that Lohan girl, because she appeared on CNN once.
___________________________________________________

I also would like to point out that Church Statement from February, that followed after they interviewed a BYU Professor.

“The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.”

That note didn’t get many people, and I wonder If the Bruce R. McConkies of Race, and any Race related Quote, and statement will be banned.

“For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.”

It is not known precisely WHY, HOW, or WHEN this restriction began in the Church… WHAT? Don’t know how to deal with that part. lol

Its all here in writing and floating in the morphic field between us all. No one has been unkind to you. You’re welcome for the patience no matter how you perceive it or even if you don’t see it. Patience with you as a person does not mean that people who actually care about YOU will remain silent. Like you pointed out it is not for you to decide what is the proper or what is who is “following the spirit” and who is not. Rebuking “you” can and is just as within the realm of love and kindness directed by the Holy Spirit as the other things you recognize or even falsely interpret as “kindness”. Once again if you look over the words that have been shared you will see NO ONE attacking you accept your own EGO MISTaken to be your true self. I firmly believe that egos are shadows that through their proximity to us we see them as mists of darkness. But defending mists of darkness…explaining why we remain enveloped in them…EXCUSING ourselves…repetitively reasoning outloud our lost state in desperate denial is just that EJECTING our TRUE selves from the driver’s seat…from their rightful place as ruler in our lives.

You said “Any idea or belief that you adopt AS YOUR OWN strictly because someone you respect or revere — said it, IS DANGEROUS.”

There is a nasty thing that grows and feeds off of the spiritual, mental, emotional wounds we receive in this life and this thing grows only as we neglect the tending and CLEANING of our wounds. The moist mists of darkness can and do eventually harden. They become a growth with a crusty outer layer dying even as it kills withering even as it feeds. It for the most part attaches itself to us only through soft smooth plasma discharges which can even remind us of being in the womb. We know something is wrong but we rather “FOCUS on the POSITIVE”. In fact I can not say I am putting forth “effort to understand this topic” when so much of my energy/effort is wasted in insisting that I am not infected, am safe in my current course…and in listing reason after reason in support of my staying on my current forbidden path, because after all……some guys and gals on a blog were “mean to me” and must not be inspired of God…definitely not as much as Brigham Young because he by very virtue of being to me only a DEAD Authority on many matters seems safer…In truth….it is an Ego….one (or more) of the fallen angels who will look to any other source and direct you to any other source other than Christ. But YOU,Liv….the real you….not the photo of Emma Stone or whoever….not even the pale skin vehicle that you would see upon glancing in a mirror….THE REAL YOU is ROYAL in the truest sense of the word and as the telestial or developing aspect of you comes to be more familiar with the CHRIST within your will also recognize it in others….Brigham Young had and has it….EVERYONE does….but only as we come TO KNOW THE FATHER and HIS SON whom He has sent…do we truly come to know ourselves.

The interesting thing is that we will also come to recognize the Enemy as we look to Christ and we wont excuse IT away as IT plays ventriloquist through the “form” of our brothers or sisters. This is a place where we come together to offer support, bear eachothers burdens etc. But we do not come together to simply placate the evil that is currently stuck on each one of us…to find comfort in the veil of UNBELIEF….or to have our Ego literally stroked because others are so polite that we know we may speak and find acceptance…and even vent (vomit) on eachother the way Isaiah described the Churtch doing in General Conference….no matter how comfortable it may seem…we are here to support one another in RENDING THE VEIL OF UNBELIEF….getting FREE from the CHAINS of HELL….in short we are not here for WARM MILK with regurgitated chunks of cream of delusion in it. Were here to put oil in our lamps so that we may act on what the SPIRIT says rather than external voices.on the air…where the prince of falsehood is given dominion to deceive.

I don’t know how to link to the other archives sometimes….I think as missionary companions we work well together and Justin would be the one to ask if anyone is interested in reading more about the veil of unbelief. There have been some most inspiring thoughts shared here and I can bear witness that they can be put into practice and lead us in our personal journeys to free ourselves from our enemy.

The (S)words I seem so quick to lash out with must be understood in a fearless way. The self same stroke of the blade with be instantaneously seen as a protective attack and as a surgical cutting away. Always life affirming….but often misunderstood. The most loving thing we can do for one another is to stand up to our ego monsters and together…slay them.

All this talk of helping others slay the ego reminds me of when Aaron rebuked Ammon:

And it came to pass that when Ammon had said these words, his brother Aaron rebuked him, saying: Ammon, I fear that thy joy doth carry thee away unto boasting. (Alma 26:10)

It’s kind of a strange scripture, as it shows one holy prophet of God (Aaron) rebuking another holy prophet of God (Ammon) because of the danger of the (possible) re-appearance of the ego. The rebuke was done out of love and concern for the eternal salvation of the other prophet, yet it was a mistaken rebuke, since Ammon’s ego was not re-appearing. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see the care that these ancients took to “slay the ego” in each other, if they saw that it might be taking hold again. This is understandable, considering that they were the “most vile of sinners,” and thus, were they to return to their sins after their conversion to Christ, it would mean spiritual death for them.

I believe either you misunderstand me or I misunderstand you. I don’t think anyone was mean to me. Not in the least. My admonition to only rebuke when moved upon my the spirit was strictly that, an admonition. It wasn’t directed to any specific person, besides myself, and it is scripturally based and therefore should be obeyed. I was guilty of rebuking others for what I thought were incorrect beliefs because of my own pride. I certainly did not have the spirit of God. And acting condescendingly? Oh my lands I can’t count the number of times I’ve done this to people!

That being said, the last few days the Lord has been showing me how “nothing” I am. Also that every idea I take ahold of without thinking to ask God if it is true is generally pride based. I had no idea I was like this! Even the priesthood ban. It was presented and I swallowed it hook line and sinker! Why? Well because then that would make me better than someone! I could go on for hours about all the many things I have believed because deep inside it would make me better or “elite” I now see that we do not rise up by standing on our brothers back. We can only rise up by lifting our brother, or maybe even pushing him up? I am a pretty crummy person and apologize for that. I have an awful lot of apologizing to do, mostly in real life;) only a little amongst my cyber friends. I just want to be filled with the pure love of Christ. So I can share it! With everyone! The Lord has also put this longing for Zion in my heart that I can’t even explain. Anyway, that would be a whole different story. So anyway, I am truly, truly sorry for being so ignorant in my comments. I feel very sheepish now. I was so wrong. I hope you would forgive me. This scripture has been on my mind so I will leave you with it and say this is pretty much how I’m feeling right now.

“Do not say: O God, I thank thee that we are better than our brethren; but rather say: O Lord, forgive my unworthiness, and remember my brethren in mercy—yea, acknowledge your unworthiness before God at all times.” (Alma 38: 14)

I don’t know how to link to the other archives sometimes….I think as missionary companions we work well together and Justin would be the one to ask if anyone is interested in reading more about the veil of unbelief.

Liv,
Actually I see more understanding coming about between us all. I was only wanting to clarify the fact that when I say things that seem harsh it you will notice even reading back how they are specifically and purposefully directed at the ego….NOT my brother or sister. Jesus taught and I adhere to this tactic as well as I can….to “Agree” with mine adversary whilst in the way with him….So when I voice disagreement it is because I feel the spirit indicate that we are not enemies at all but brothers and sisters with this indescribable urge for Zion which has been placed in our hearts from long before.

I too have been shown recently that nothingness that you are talking about….This is why I was telling you that the REAL you is the ROYAL you….the words come from the same root. This is the TRICK of Lucifer….telling us that we need to see things as he says they are to feel elite….when it is through equality that we actually do come in touch with our ROYALTY….our NOBILITY…when we recognize it in others we feel it and possess in within ourselves when we refuse it in others…no matter how POLITELY…well we deny ourselves the honor of feeling and utilizing fully our ROYAL POWER as one of the infinite children of the Most High…ya know?

It is interesting how King Benjamin….one who was considered royal according to the system which had been set up. Showed the true definition of royalty by putting himself on the SAME LEVEL with his brethren….setting that example of service….and going all the way in dissmantling the system in favor of practicing what he preached what he understood through the Holy Spirit…not because some other man had told him “this is the way it is.”…which as we are learning is very dangerous to our spirits. Its interesting that the same man who is showing by example the equality and nobility of all men then reminds us of our NOTHINGNESS….here is what the Holy Spirit has spoken to my mind recently to help me embrace and feel more fully without fear my ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS….He says we are looking at it all wrong when we fear it….it means the same thing as a HELPLESS BABY who needs our love and defense to survive….a part of us will ETERNALLY be a baby….this is ETERNAL life. When we accept this we automatically get more in touch with that part of ourselves which is not a helpless baby but an all powerful Father or Mother.

I love being a baby…and I love being a father! I am filled with love for all my brothers and sisters and rejoice in hearing such wonderful things and feeling more fully the bonding through Christ that helps us to help each other. Love you sister Liv.

Aaron was accusing Ammon of being under the influence of Ego…because he was projecting the sins of his OWN Ego. Aaron went into the land with some of that deeply ingrained sense of superiority. He created his own experience…He fully expected the Lamanites to act on their multi-generational prejudice against the Nephites and to judge him by the color of his skin to be a spy to be an enemy…He fully expected that they would be every bit as depraved and unjust and violent towards him as he had been told they would. And just as he had come to believe strongly in the wicked state of the Lamanite people…and perhaps more than a little biased himself by the stories of Nephi’s unjust treatment at the hands of his horrible brethren etc. And he REAPED exactly what his thoughts and words SOWED…indeed he was thrust into prison and endured all manner of hardships….BUT WHY?

Poor Aaron he must have seen Ammon as just lucky…he happened to walk into Lamoni’s hood…and Lamoni was laid back and cool. But Aaron believed that which his Ego whispered to him…that he had suffered more and so he should not suffer and listen to Ammon’s rejoicings any longer….Aaron was a straight up hater in this moment. It was HIS Ego that totally missed the point. And he could not allow himself to rejoice along with his brother. His brother who went in among the SAME, ferocious, depraved, violent and misled people but got very different results…they both got what they EXPECTED…Expectancy is FAITH…its that simple. Ammon wasnt naive…he was not exposed to any less dangerous circumstances…but he chose to invest MORE belief in goodness…he chose to be ONE with and EMBRACE EQUALITY he learned from the Lamanites as much as he taught them. And THIS is the secret which is no secret.

(S)word-play is something that goes well with missionary work…as we see in the story of Ammon. I know many including my own biologically closer family felt that I had been too hard on my brother Erin Evans back when the Cybe-Tribe was more active on facebook. I admit that i “Let him have it”….LOL…but it was not him it was his Ego….and now we are closer than ever. When one wields the sword in LOVE miracles are possible. Erin’s Ego was spreading fear…and hypocrisy all over…I wouldn’t stand for it and acted boldy “against” Erin in the eyes of many….but I was fighting FOR our bond of brotherhood. And one of my sisters and I were able to have a wonderful conversation which brought us closer too because of it. I asked her why she had apologized for my actions…when they had been only to defend the tribe AND to help the very brother who it appeared I was attacking. She said I don;t understand how you and your wife come to my ward and say controversial things and say them in a way that could offend everyone in the gospel doctrine class and yet after the class the people in my ward LOOOVE you and want you to be in the ward etc….I told her that this is the way it works…when we LOOOOK for recognition, love, acceptance, belonging and community or brotherhood/sisterhood outside of ourselves instead of feeling it from God inside and carry out to those with whom we come in contact then we ironically or rather PRECISELY….reap EXACTLY what we sow. Those who love me most purely will not suffer me to labor mistakenly under some false concept of superiority or inferiority.

Elder Chantdown,
Thank you so much for attacking my ego so ferociously! I really like what you wrote so thanks for that too. I cannot stand reading back through my comments here though so I will forbear. It’s akin to reading my diary from my teen years. Ugh! So embarrassing! I now know what a “stiff neck” is and I don’t want one anymore. I knew I had(have) a lot of pride because the Lord has told me repeatedly to humble myself. The problem was finding the nooks and crannies it has been hiding. I haven’t found them all yet but through the grace of God I hope to. And soon!

Contrary to the popular belief that race is determined biologically, it is a social construction, a social invention, that labels people based on physical appearance.

Possibly only 6 of the human body’s 35,000 genes determine the color of their skin. Because all human beings carry 99.9 % of the same genetic material, these “racial” genes that make us look different are miniscule compared with other genes that make us the same.

Smoking a cigar on a Mormon blog. That’s the best picture, yet. It brought a smile to this anarchist’s face. I wouldn’t mind seeing that pic screen printed onto a t-shirt, along with the words, “And I’m a Mormon.”

Sometimes I learn new things myself while home-educating my children. I did a lesson on colors with my first grader and learned, along with her, that white light is comprised of all the colors of the spectrum. Maybe everyone else already knew this but not this home-schoolin’ mom. So that discovery sent my mind on an adventure! God is white light right? Even brighter that the sun. So God is composed of EVERY color. We can’t even really call our skin black or white. More like mocha or peach or tan. But in the concept of ACTUAL black and white, black is the absence of all color/light. Whereas white is every single color/light. I have a hard time putting my thoughts into words but I am so excited by this new understanding! Also makes me wonder if caucasion people are just more mixed than others? I love first grade, it’s so exciting!

If you were to replace the word “blacks” with “women”, many of the statements made here would sound quite ludicrous. Just because God denies women the priesthood, doesn’t mean he hates them or doesn’t want them to gather with the Saints. It merely means they have a different calling in life than those who are called to have the priesthood. A woman wanting the priesthood is like a man wanting to be pregnant.

As far as revelations go, we have just as much evidence of a revelation for the removal of the ban as we have for the ban. Has anyone seen the actual revelation Spencer W. Kimball received in 1978? All we have is a public declaration that there was a revelation. The same goes for the 1890 Manifesto. Since it seems the vast majority of Mormons have come to believe that all of God’s revelations must be canonized in order to be binding upon the Church, I’m surprised there isn’t more interest in seeing the actual revelations behind the 1890 and 1978 declarations.

Do we call God racist for denying bodies to the spirits who followed Satan in the pre-existence? He most certainly is! …and it’s his prerogative to be so.

“Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?”
(Isaiah 45:9)

Just because God denies women the priesthood, doesn’t mean he hates them or doesn’t want them to gather with the Saints.

presupposes a thing that I’ve yet to see demonstrated to my satisfaction — based on what are you claiming that God “denies women the priesthood“? The church may certainly be said to deny women priesthood duties and functions — but I see God referring to His daughters as “Queens and Priestesses unto the Most High God“.

Also — what does “denying bodies to the spirits who followed Satan in the pre-existence” have anything to do with race or being called racist?

And:

Since it seems the vast majority of Mormons have come to believe that all of God’s revelations must be canonized in order to be binding upon the Church

in my experience — this is not the “vast majority” opinion of LDS — quite the opposite, in fact. So I must disagree with your observation based on that fact alone — but interesting perspective nonetheless.

Since it seems the vast majority of Mormons have come to believe that all of God’s OLD revelations must be canonized in order to be binding upon the Church. Otherwise, whatever the current president says is revelation.

The whole Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses, Prophet and Prophetesses naming does seem to imply that women someday will hold Priesthood positions. This is assuming of course that Kings, Priests, and Prophets are all priesthood offices. I guess their time just hasn’t come yet. I suppose they must be more cursed than the blacks, because their curse is lasting longer. I suspect all it will take to change God’s mind is a ladies revolt.

Don’t you think the spirits who have been denied a body in this life, the spirits we call “evil spirits” feel discriminated against?

Whether or not I think so has nothing to do with racism. You’ve switched from racism to discrimination [which are two different things]. The discrimination or distinction made against them is a direct result of their own actions — it’s a consequence of their choice to rebel.

That’s an entirely different matter altogether than the race-based exclusion of black Africans from the temple. You can read LDSA’s comment on this post [this one] — where he posted the definitions for racism, for more clarification.

And

The whole Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses, Prophet and Prophetesses naming does seem to imply that women someday will hold Priesthood positions.

Lol — “priest-s and priest-esses” doesn’t imply holding priest-hood positions? I fail to see how that’s the case — so I couldn’t get into the rest of the point you made there — because I was hung-up on that one point.

“The discrimination or distinction made against them is a direct result of their own actions — it’s a consequence of their choice to rebel.”

Several church leaders believed the reason for the denial of priesthood to the blacks in this life was because of mistakes they made in the pre-existence (I also believe this to be true). So, your statement could apply to the blacks just as much as to the spirits that followed Lucifer. Although, obviously the blacks rebellion was of a lesser degree than those spirits or they wouldn’t have been given bodies at all.

If you believe in Joseph Smith, you believe there are three degrees of glory awaiting the end of this life and one degree of no glory (hell). Isn’t it possible that before we entered this realm of existence, that we were also grading based on our level of obedience in the pre-existence?

Concerning the Priests and Priestesses, yes it is implied that they are priesthood offices, I just can’t think off the top of my head where that is ever stated explicitly, although I do believe it to be the case.

I agree with your definition of discrimination. Racism is merely a form of discrimination. To discriminate means to see a difference between two things. Racism not only sees that there are differences between races, but attaches meaning to those differences (i.e. one race has more value or should be privileged above another). Since everyone, God included, discriminates, the question is then, “Is God a racist?” To that I would answer, “Yes.” He gives different rewards based on race, just as he will do in the next life when we are each alloted our portion. He is not unjust in doing this, because as the scripture says:

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Corinthians 5:10)

If you believe in the pre-existence, you believe that there was a judgement made by God to determine who would or who would not receive a body in this life. I see no reason why God wouldn’t have made further judgments to determine the type of body we would receive. Who are we to question the designs of God? However, you’re free to debate until your blue in the face about whether or not he made such designs. For me myself, I’m content that such is the case, because I believe in the words of past prophets, both modern and ancient.

Several church leaders believed the reason for the denial of priesthood to the blacks in this life was because of mistakes they made in the pre-existence (I also believe this to be true).

Unless it’s scripture — then it remains the opinion of “several church leaders”. The point of the this post — and my comments throughout — have been to show that, scripturally-speaking, that opinion has no basis.

I’ll echo again one of the concluding ideas of this post:

Until the scriptural record is more complete — until we receive the prophets of the other nations, tribes, and people, with their prophetic records that will come forth from Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands, etc. — we cannot speak with certainty of how God has dealt with the other races and if there are promises made to them that we know that of. Which is why the best thing to do [until then] is stick to an:

god hath made of one blood
all nations of men

and

there is neither jew
nor greek

approach to associating a state of righteousness or a cursed state to any of the races of human-kind that are around today.

“Race” is a pretty conventional thing — and at this stage in human history, there’s no such thing as a “pure race” for God to send “righteous” spirits to, anyway. So I don’t see much value in the doctrine.

This is a sign and type of the way in which C.C.C. (Collective Caucasian Consciousness) gets applied, or misapplied to the skin.
Always preferring to work from the outside inward, we play into the white-gloved hands of the apron-clad adversary, who said to the progenitors of the Adamic race: “Cover your nakedness!” We were told that it was for our protection from “dangerous” UV rays which The Sun emanates daily. This skin-deep application of The Light is akin to partaking of only the bread while rejecting the wine of the Holy Sacrament. This is precisely what our progenitor, Cain, did when he refused to make a blood sacrifice and instead tried to content his spirit with only grains.

Are we so fond of our whiteousness that we would reject righteousness and content our-cellves with a lack of spiritual content. We need not embody and let the light shine from within when we can appear pure on the outside, or so goes the thinking.
Now our skin is white. The mark of C.C.CAIN is upon us and as it seeps into our neural tissues it eventually resurfaces in sometimes violent reactions as the mark of K.K.KAIN.

“If you believe in the pre-existence, you believe that there was a judgement made by God to determine who would or who would not receive a body in this life. I see no reason why God wouldn’t have made further judgments to determine the type of body we would receive. Who are we to question the designs of God? However, you’re free to debate until your blue in the face about whether or not he made such designs. For me myself, I’m content that such is the case, because I believe in the words of past prophets, both modern and ancient.”

god didn’t decide who got a body and who didn’t. there were some who chose to be born and some who chose to follow satan. did god also decide who got to be born into rich and poor families?

LDSA — that certainly clears-up the theological twistings that are necessary to explain why God was saying all the “rule over him”, “father of lies”, and “perdition” stuff to Cain — when those are epithets typically used to refer to Satan.

I’ve heard all sorts of crazy rationalizations as to how that part is applying to Cain — when all the while, the Lord was just making an aside to Satan.

JUSTIN; Your fav. bigot is BAAAAAAAAACK!!!! Good grief man why do you persist in mixing apples with oranges! how do you connect the “Book of Abraham” with “victorian Slavery” pleeeeease!

Anyhow last fall I attended a “Obama” for pres. ralley! I thought damn and these people qualify for the priesthood of God! It looked much like a orgy of idol worship boredering on human sacrifice, given half an oppurtunity!

I wonder when was the last time God caved in to appease the world and overturned 6000 years of PROTOCAL ?

Ya this God less government told Spencer W. krumbell to jump and he said God said “how high”!!!!

D&C 107:40 The order of this priesthood is confirmed to be handed down from father to son! Now Justin, if the people follow Gods instruction booklet, how would they get outside those genetic parameters? Answer ” they can’t “!

Anyhow the priesthood did not originate with the church and if they want to pollute their inheritance who am I to stop them, after all the church serves no purpose whatsoever come the millenium.

If the saints and anyone else who wants to mix their seed with the seed of Cain and destroy their roots, trunk, stem and branch’s be my guest.

Quick LDSA!….we have a commenter here seriously offending people left and right. He is undermining the “G” rated, family friendly atmosphere you have worked so hard to establish and maintain with such posts as Sperm Sorting Function and with such tags as “Sex Appeal”. I understand wanting to make this site a cozy place for racist hate-speech. I firmly believe that people have the right to speak their mind however they please. I am after all an LDS Anarchist. But this word which I spy in the comment made by BrandNu11…this use of a dirty version of the word ‘dang’….is, in my eyes COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

Take a look at the About page and notice that profanity is not allowed on this site and will be moderated. If you can agree to that, you are welcome to continue to post here. If that is something that you cannot agree with, then you can pursue other options.

The word “damn,” last I checked, is not profanity, although it is one of the words that will activate the moderation function. As for “sperm” and “sex,” these words are also not considered profanity. The list of moderated words on this blog is fairly short, for I never felt the need to make it extensive. The list isn’t latter-day saint specific, but what a dictionary would generally list as obscene or vulgar, etc. In other words, what the general populace generally considers profanity. Although a LDS might use “dang” instead of “damn,” a peculiar quirk of the LDS, the average English speaking human wouldn’t find “damn” offensive, so it passes.

The target audience of the LDS Anarchy blog is the Mormon population, specifically the LDS church, but any of the restoration churches and splinter groups may also find content here that applies to their theology. As much as you may dislike BrandNu11’s views, they are uniquely Mormon, and so he is welcome here and can express his views. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists as well as unbelievers are also welcome to express their views. But no one is allowed to express their views here using (what is generally regarded as) profanity, for that will stop the target audience from reading. This especially applies to blog articles, for sometimes comments slip through moderation. Although you and I and many others may have no qualms about the use of profanity, the LDS church membership stops listening or reading when they come across it. The anarchy is order symbol is enough of a filter, I think. I don’t want to put additional obstacles in people’s way.

I’m certain you can understand the wisdom of a ‘G’ rating. If there are any views expressed by any commenter which you disagree with or find offensive, you can either ignore them, give them a thumbs down, or respond to them and endeavor to teach them the errors of their ways.

I also am not convinced. It’s just that that is how the conversation looked to me. I’d have to get confirmation from God to know for sure. But I thought it was interesting enough to share because of the implications.

As far as verse 15, the previous verse and verse 15 taken together (from the JST) are the following:

14 And Satan said unto Cain, Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.

15 And Satan swear unto Cain, that he would doaccording to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.

Having never myself made a pact with the devil, therefore, I can’t say for certain, but all the fables of evil spirits show the wizard conjuring up the evil spirit to do the wizard’s bidding. The whole thing is a deception, of course, for the wizard feels powerful, as if he is the one in control. This is contrary to how we must approach God, kneeling before him, in humility, begging for blessings. Thus Satan offers something different in that one is free to remain in one’s pride while being able to obtain power, authority, fame, fortune and control over men and evil spirits. The whole demonic package sounds so appealing and liberating. But it is a deception. Lucifer is not bound by honor, like God is. All such pacts are honored only insofar as they further the purposes of the devil. When they’ve served their purpose, the devil abandons the man to his doom. He does not support his children.

So, who are the drunkards of Ephraim? They have certainly made a pact with the devil.

Isaiah 28:15,18 –
“15 Ye have said: We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:”

“18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.”

If the drunkards of Ephraim refers to many specifically in the lineage of Ephraim and particularly found within the Latter-Day Gentile Church…in what way are these people aware of the pact they have made with Death&Taxes …oh I mean Death&Hell&The Devil.

If most of our Statist (Statanic) neighbors at Church and in our communities are not fully aware of their having made a pact with the devil on a personal level is this verse perhaps less about them. And if so, who is specifically being pinpointed with these verses. Does our subjection to them then by default extend at least some of the consequences to our own heads?

If we say the leaders are the ones who have more consciously made this deal with the devil, there is a lot of evidence supporting that idea within these passages of scripture. This particular part starts off directly addressing “14…ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.” So is Jerusalem only referring to D.C., only to Salt Lake or does it apply to both? Are the drunkards of Ephraim purely LDS, purely “Non-members” or are they comprised of both? Is one under greater condemnation than the other? What about a ‘DoE’ who is both LDS and a politician?

How many of them have seriously and consciously made a deal with death and hell? If they perhaps range through varying levels of awareness regarding the nature of the covenants they have made…how can one be so sure that he has “never made a pact with the devil.”? Knowing that the majority of us reading and writing on this blog fall into multiple categories of DoE culture, ie. Mormon,American,Ephraimite (Adopted Gentile or Literal Seed)…
Is it wise of us to rest on our laurels? Do we really have any laurels to rest on and if so, are laurels much of a real support against entangling contracts with death, hell and the devil?

Is a person any safer who “went through the temple” post 1990? Can a Mormon who “took out their endowment” prior to that date honestly say they have never sworn by their throat, that if they tell it they would die? Is it all okay in the end because the true temple of the Lord is the physical body? If you have a physical body what kind of position does that put you in with Satan? Is the Devil really so clever? Are we?

the people described in this verse are aware of their covenant with death. and i would bet jerusalem refers to jersalem, the people who rule their have made a covenant with the USA to buy more weapons. and they use them to ruin the lives of children of abraham.